Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPORT ENCOURAGEMENT

10.5 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage exports by extending the purchase tax relief available to bona fide tourists to the United Kingdom.
My object in seeking to bring forward this Bill is to encourage exports by giving incentives to tourists to spend money in Great Britain. The Chairman of the British Travel Association, in his annual report last year, had this to say:
… 2,776,000 visitors came to Britain from abroad, an increase of 13 per cent. over 1964. The money which they spent here—including fares paid by them to British carriers—amounted to £321 million, an increase of 4 per cent.
He went on to say that
… tourism has established itself as our fourth largest earner of foreign currency—and, as far as American dollars are concerned, the largest of all. The foreign revenue we derive from tourism now ranks with that earned by the 'classic' tourist countries, France and Italy—countries which were engaged in a world-wide policy of advertis-

ing their attractions long before the British Travel Association was founded. Our foreign revenue, in fact, exceeds those of two other well-established tourist countries, Switzerland and Austria, which can also claim a long history of tourist promotion.
Later in his report the Chairman points to the fact that by 1970 he estimates that there would be 5 million visitors to this country and that the opportunities for expansion in the tourist trade were almost limitless. He goes on to say:
This will be done in the face of considerable difficulties due to our geographical position. We are one of the northern countries of Europe, and the main trend of tourist traffic is always to the south. We lack the powerful magnet of the Mediterranean sun, which confers on all those countries bordering the Mediterranean a special tourist attraction.
I submit that we have an advantage which some of those other countries do not possess, and that is in the variety and quality of our goods. Many of them are subject to Purchase Tax and are, therefore, more costly than they need be. At the moment the only way in which Purchase Tax may be avoided is to complete a P.T. 40 and then the article has to be sent back to the boat or plane. The articles may not be taken out of the shop for use in the country without payment of Purchase Tax. At this point I should declare an interest, because I shall have to quote from my personal experience to show how sales are lost. As the House may know, in my spare time I run a tailoring business, and we do a substantial export trade, much greater


than the sales that our export rebates show.
We do a very substantial business with the Continent, and it is worth saying that for clothing it pays foreigners to come to this country to buy their clothes, because not only are they cheaper but the quality is better than in any other country in the world. All too often customers are passing through, perhaps on their way to the United States, and they may want to take the clothes with them, or they may be visitors from America and wish to use the clothes while in England. They may be going to the Continent and would like to use them there, leaving for America via Genoa.
All too often the customer says:
If I cannot take these things with me I will have to leave it until I return
which may be in two or three years. This is magnified dozens of times throughout the West End and the country. It is an old saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We cannot afford to let one single franc or dollar go out of our hands. The French have a system whereby specified retail shops give a discount of 20 per cent., provided payment is made in travellers' cheques. This is in effect a relief of sales tax, and I wonder if we cannot do the same.
My Bill seeks to do this and to give to bona fide visitors to this country who pay in travellers' cheques or foreign currency, on production of a passport and on completion of an appropriate form, relief from Purchase Tax on any article which may then be taken and used in this country. There would be a tremendous stimulus to foreign visitors to buy British. I can almost hear people saying to their wives, for instance, "Wait till you get to Britain to buy that cashmere sweater because you will get a 10 per cent discount".
There is another reason, subsidiary, perhaps, but important nevertheless. Under the Companies Bill which is now in Committee, all traders must disclose their export turnover. A man who sells a cashmere sweater from a shop in Stratford-on-Avon or Princes Street, Edinburgh, contributes to the export drive in

just as big a way as if he had sold the article in Paris or New York, and he does so without any expenditure of foreign exchange. It is right and fair that those who actively seek to do this should have credit for their exports and also should have the export rebate.
One store in Regent Street, by no means a very large one, has told me that it did over £170,000 worth of foreign export business with visitors to this country last year. The visitors paid in travellers' cheques and foreign currency, but they had to pay Purchase Tax as well, so the store got no credit for the exports. They were treated as home sales and did not show in the export rebate figures.
I am advised that to achieve this objective would require only a fairly modest amendment to Section 18 of the Purchase Tax Act, 1963. I am advised, also, that there are no international complications. I am convinced that we cannot afford not to make this simple adjustment to the existing regulations. It would give a tremendous stimulus to overseas visitors to spend more of their money in this country. It would encourage our traders to set themselves out to sell to visitors in this country, and it would make a considerable contribution to our foreign currency earnings. It would end confusion and frustration. It is right and fair to do it. I am sure that it would be profitable. I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Weatherill, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. David Webster, Sir Gerald Wills, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Hector Monro, Mr. Anthony Buck, and Mr. Cranley Onslow.

EXPORT ENCOURAGEMENT

A Bill to encourage exports by extending the purchase tax relief available to bona fide tourists to the United Kingdom, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th April and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

POLICE PENSIONS (LINCOLNSHIRE)

10.14 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
These amending Regulations make a small Amendment to the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966, in consequence of the Lincolnshire Police Amalgamation Scheme, 1967. The amalgamation scheme was approved on 4th February and comes into operation on 1st April next. There are at present in Lincolnshire three police forces with one chief constable. They are the police forces of Parts of Holland, Kesteven and Lindsay. On 1st April, the police forces for these three divisions and the police forces for Grimsby and Lincoln will be amalgamated.
Police pension matters in the existing separate forces for the three divisions of Lincolnshire have up to now been managed through what was known as the Lincolnshire Joint Police Superannuation Fund, and the Police Pensions Regulations have made special provision in respect of this arrangement. This special provision is contained in Regulation 96 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966. The whole of Regulation 96 refers to the special circumstances existing in Lincolnshire. I should mention that this arrangement has been unique in that no similar arrangements operate in any other group of police forces.
On amalgamation, the combined police authority—the three divisions of Lincolnshire, Grimsby and Lincoln—will administer police pensions matters for the newly created force so that the existing arrangements in Lincolnshire will cease to have anything other than historical significance. But in these changed circumstances it will be necessary, for the purposes of the Police Pensions Regulations, for the former separate forces for the three divisions of Lincolnshire to be treated as though they had been one force. The amending Regulations now before the House make the necessary provision by substituting a new Regula-

tion for the existing Regulation 96 in the 1966 Regulations.
This amendment has been agreed by the Police Council for Great Britain.

10.17 a.m.

Sir David Renton: I thank the right hon. Lady for the explanation which she has volunteered for this short and simple amending Regulation, but I have one question to put. We know that there are a great many amalgamations of police forces to follow. Will there have to be an amending Regulation following each amalgamation, or is this a special case? If it is a special case, what makes it so? What makes it different from all others? There is nothing on the face of the amending Regulations or in the Explanatory Note to make clear why the amalgamation of these Lincolnshire forces puts them in a category different from any other type of amalgamation.
So that we may have the position clear for the future, will the right hon. Lady be good enough to explain the point?

Miss Bacon: I thought that I had explained it, but I shall try to make the matter clear. There will be no need to have other amending Regulations for other amalgamations. The reason for there having to be this amending Regulation for Lincolnshire is that Lincolnshire is unique inasmuch as the County of Lincoln now has three separate police forces with one chief constable.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966, before him, he will see that Regulation 96 is concerned solely with Lincolnshire. This is so because of the special position in Lincolnshire. There has been the Lincolnshire Joint Police Superannuation Fund bringing together the funds of the three separate forces in a way which is not done in any other part of the country, and there had to be that special Regulation in the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966. The present amending Regulation merely makes the necessary amendment in respect of that special case. Because of the amalgamation of the three parts of Lincolnshire, with Grimsby and Lincoln, the original Regulation No. 96 will no longer apply. This is a substitution for the original Regulation 96. It is a unique case because of the special


circumstances previously existing in Lincolnshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.

ROADS (PARKING PLACES)

10.20 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move,
That the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1967, dated 14th February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
At the moment, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport makes and amends designation orders for schemes which charge for street parking over the whole of England, except in Greater London, where the Greater London Council took over the Minister's powers in 1963. In Scotland and Wales, the respective Secretaries of State make these orders. The Minister concerned makes these orders on the application of local authorities.
These powers were first given to the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956. They were re-enacted in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In 1965, a Statutory Instrument transferred similar powers to the Secretary of State for Wales when the Minister of Transport ceased to be responsible for highways in Wales.
In 1960, parking meters were still something of a novelty in this country, and it was felt that orders introducing meter schemes should still be made by the Minister and approved by Parliament, even though all other orders to control parking, both on and off the street, are made by local authorities. But Parliament clearly regarded this as an interim arrangement only, because in the same year a provision was built into Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act to enable the Minister to make an order transferring her functions at any time to local authorities.
Charging for street parking is now much more widespread. It has become a recognised means of controlling parking where demand is very high. My right hon. Friend considers that it is no longer necessary for her to go on making these local orders. It involves the Department in a great deal of detailed preparatory work, to no real advantage to central or local government or to persons affected by the scheme.
My right hon. Friend therefore proposes to make use of Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, to make this Order. Its effect is to transfer to local parking authorities in England, Wales and Scotland the Ministers' powers to make orders creating or amending schemes involving charging for street parking. In England and Wales, the local authorities to have this power would be county boroughs and county districts and in Scotland county councils and town councils.
My right hon. Friend would, however, keep control of the essentials. She would retain her powers to approve the type and design of meters, to receive objections and to hold public inquiries where necessary. She would have new powers to consent to orders before they are made and to vary or revoke orders. Where the parking authority was not also the highway authority for a road to which an order related, it would have to obtain the highway authority's consent before making the order.
This is a step towards getting a better balance between central and local government. Except for orders relating to trunk roads, these parking meter orders are the only ones actually made now by the Minister. Local authorities already make all other orders dealing with parking and loading, including the provision of off-street parking places where charges are made. They are only required to submit orders to the Minister that affect a trunk road or if an objector claims that they deny reasonable access to premises. These safeguards will not be affected by this Order.
The proposals should save a good deal of time and work for both central and local government without prejudicing individual rights. At the moment, the Minister prepares the details of each scheme, advertises it, receives all objections, and finally lays the order before


Parliament. All this involves a great deal of time and effort on the part of the Department. Many of these objections could be resolved satisfactorily by the local authority itself.
It is the remoteness of the present system from the individuals concerned that often gives rise to quite unnecessary difficulties and delays. In many cases, a simple explanation of the effect of the scheme is all that is required to satisfy an objection, and this can be done much more effectively at the local level.
Under the new proposals, unresolved objections would still be put to the Minister. The difference will be that the local authority would prepare and advertise the scheme and receive all objections in the first instance. The local authority would revise the scheme if necessary in the light of objections, and only then would refer the order and any unresolved objections to the Minister. Having considered the objections—and held a public inquiry if necessary—my right hon. Friend could then consent to the scheme, subject to any variations she might think fit.
In her speech of November last year to the Town and Country Planning Association, my right hon. Friend said that she would get rid of her control over the details of traffic regulation orders if in return local authorities produced effective traffic plans.
If they need wider powers to enable them to do this",
she said,
I will seek to get them in my new Transport Bill. Much of this requires legislation, long-term planning, administrative change. Is there anything we can do now?
This is something which we can do now, within existing legislation.
Under Section 5(1) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, parking meter orders may include comprehensive controls on parking, waiting, loading and unloading. By transferring her powers to make these orders to local authorities, my right hon. Friend is, therefore, making it easier for them to plan and carry out comprehensive parking policies. I hope, therefore, that the House will now approve the Order.

10.26 a.m.

Mr. David Webster: The whole House will, I think,

agree with the essential basis of what the Parliamentary Secretary, with considerable clarity, has told us is the intention behind the Order. It looks much more clear than the introduction to the Order, which refers to about five different Statutes, including the London Government Act, 1963, and the Minister of Land and Natural Resources Order, 1965, which takes us back to a little bit of history which was rather brief.
We come back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), when Minister of Transport, said on Second Reading of the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Bill when discussing the Clause in question. My right hon. Friend said:
At present, I can authorise only certain selected towns to be what I call parking-meter authorities and, when I do that, each scheme that they put forward has to be approved by the Minister. Frankly, I do not see why a Minister of Transport should approve a scheme in, say, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham; he has not the necessary local knowledge. Therefore, by Clause 5, I am taking the power, at any rate, to push the whole business of parking on to the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 899.]
That being the intention of my right hon. Friend, it would be unlike me to disagree with him about this.
I am glad to see that one of the first consequences of the efforts at nationalism in Scotland and Wales that we saw last week is a step of devolution on to the local authorities. It is perfectly right that they should be the people who, knowing the local conditions, should ask the Minister for the right to proceed with an order.
The Minister's reserve power—the right to refuse or to vary according to whether she thinks fit—is reasonable enough. The right to hold a public inquiry if the Minister thinks fit seems to me to give the right to hold a public inquiry only to the Minister. I wonder whether it is possible for a local authority to ask for a public inquiry and whether—I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland present—there is any difference in the Scottish enactment, as there often is of a minor kind, in this respect.
We are simply extending what has existed for six years in London to the rest of the country, and this seems to me reasonable. There has not been a great deal of objection to the way in which


this procedure has been carried out in London, although there are people who by instinct regret the taking away of another right of Parliament to scrutinise a charge on the citizen. In this case, however, the process being the speeding up of traffic, we feel that it is necessary to take this course.
On the other hand, one comes back to the anxieties that were referred to in Standing Committee on the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill when the former Mr. Ede moved an Amendment to ensure that when a local authority was not a highway authority, consultation should take place. This anxiety was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary of that time, and it has been referred to by the present Parliamentary Secretary today, who has said that it is essential for consultation to take place. That is the matter about which one would have the greatest anxiety. However, the House being content on that subject, I would thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1967, dated 14th February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.31 a.m.

Mr. David Webster: Is there a Minister from the Department of Education and Science present to explain how the Bill now stands?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Webster: In that case, Mr. Speaker, is it possible for me to ask for an explanation of the present situation in connection with the Bill, so that the House may know what is going on?

Mr. Speaker: It is possible for the hon. Gentleman to ask for it, but it is not for the Chair to give it.

Mr. Webster: This is an extraordinary situation, Mr. Speaker, and we need your guidance. Legislation is being put through the House with no Minister here to explain it to us. I would beg to move that the House adjourns while we wait for the appropriate Minister to come to explain this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): As is customary on consolidation Measures, I am present to give the House any assistance that I can. This is a pure consolidation Measure. It has been considered by the Joint Committee, which has reported that it is pure consolidation. It raises no new point of law, and it was considered by the House on Second Reading. In my submission, there are no points which arise on Third Reading. The only issue before us is whether it is desirable that the law should be consolidated in the way proposed. We have heard no arguments to the contrary in this debate.

Mr. Webster: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his clear explanation, and congratulate him on his versatility in giving us a lucid view on education when he is not a Minister in the Department.
I should like to know whether the Government's interference in any negotiations at present before the Burnham Committee will affect this Bill. The House would not wish to allow this type of legislation to be rushed through when there is difficult and dangerous interference with precedent in the way that the Government have clearly gone against the original intention of the reconstitution of the Burnham Committee about three years ago—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, we can discuss what is in the Bill. We cannot discuss the reconstitution of the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Webster: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the present negotiations on teachers' salaries require that an element of remuneration and superannuation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This cannot be discussed on this Third Reading. This is a consolidation Measure, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed, without Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

The debate having been concluded, Mr. SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Death Grant

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to remedy the situation whereby a death grant cannot be paid in respect of a person who during lifetime has been permanently unable to pay insurance contributions because of physical or mental incapacity.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 6th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). —[Vol. 742, c. 1034–5.]

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very cruel anomaly which causes serious hardship to the relatives of handicapped people? Can she not do something about it in advance of the general review of social security benefits?

Miss Herbison: I am very much aware of the difficulties that can arise in such cases. At present, if a person who has accepted responsibility for the funeral is in receipt of supplementary benefits, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can make a payment towards the funeral.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of the death of a 22-year-old spastic in Brixton who was not insurable and who had had to live on National Assistance since the age of 16, his parents had to pay the whole cost of the funeral, although they were in very humble circumstances? There cannot be many of these cases. Cannot something be done to help this tragic category of case?

Miss Herbison: This is the sort of case about which my hon. Friend asked in his Question. We have examined the matter and have come to the conclusion that under the contributory system it would be difficult to find a solution, but we are trying to find a solution in some

other way. If the parent is in receipt of supplementary benefit help can be given.

Publicity

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she is taking to give publicity to the achievements of her Department and its future plans.

Miss Herbison: The work and achievements of my Department are always fully described in Annual Reports, which are presented to Parliament and are reported in the Press. Major new changes such as the introduction last year of the new schemes of supplementary benefits and of earnings-related benefits are given wide-spead national and provincial publicity through the Press, radio and television, and by the use of posters, leaflets and talks. Matters arising from the review of the social security schemes will continue to be brought forward as they become ready and will be given publicity in the usual way.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but will she consider taking additional steps to increase television and newspaper advertising, so enabling a clearer picture to be obtained of the improving status of pensioners and others in receipt of social security benefits?

Miss Herbison: I will send my hon. Friend particulars of all that we have been trying to do for the last two years. He will see that efforts on publicity have been very wide indeed.

Pensionable Age

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security if, in order to achieve greater equality between men and women, she will take steps to reduce the pensionable age for men to 60 years.

Miss Herbison: The question of pension age is only one of a number of issues which have necessarily to be examined in the course of the major review of the National Insurance schemes.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that equality between men and women is a two-way process and that it is high time this anomaly was


removed? A man aged 60 has to wait five more years for his pension, although his expectation of life at that age is considerably shorter than that of a woman of the same age?

Miss Herbison: I agree with much that my hon. Friend has said. From today I shall be beginning to earn increments on my own pension, whereas my colleagues will have to wait for another five years. But before changing one of the basic qualifying conditions for pensions we have to take into account the many complex issues that would arise, and also the far-reaching consequences in the financial, economic and social spheres.

Mr. Risdale: Can the right hon. Lady say what the cost would be of reducing the pensionable age for men to 60?

Miss Herbison: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question, I shall be glad to answer it.

National Insurance Contributions (Stamped Cards)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Social Security what conclusion she has reached about the merits and demerits of the stamped card system for National Insurance contributions.

Miss Herbison: The future of the stamped card system needs to be considered in relation to our plans for benefits and any decision must await the outcome of our review of the National Insurance scheme.

Mr. Longden: Can the right hon. Lady say when this is likely to be?

Miss Herbison: Not yet. As I have explained in the House time and time again, as each part of it has become ready we have brought it forward. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that as we go on to earnings-related pensions and insurance many of the advantages of the stamped card system will disappear.

Family Allowances (Value)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Social Security to what figure the 10s. rate of family allowance paid in respect of third and subsequent

children would require to be increased to restore the purchasing power to the level at which it stood when the 10s. rate was originally introduced.

Miss Herbison: On the basis of the Index of Retail Prices, 13s. 7d.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I wish the right hon. Lady many happy returns of the day, but does not she agree that these figures offer a clear indication of at least one course she can take to deal with the serious problem of malnutrition among larger families, about which she has recently had a good deal of evidence?

Miss Herbison: The figure that I have quoted—and for the 8s. allowance the appropriate equivalent would be 12s. 6d.—shows clearly that something must be done for the children, particularly those of the low wage earner. I have told the House on many occasions that we are urgently considering the matter.

Supplementary Benefits (P60 Form)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will divorce the administrative procedure for the payment of supplementary benefits from the necessity to produce a P60 form.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): My hon. Friend's Question is based on a misunderstanding. The production of a P60 is simply a great help to us in getting earnings-related supplement paid without delay.

Mr. Moyle: Will my hon. Friend consider making sure that this is more widely understood? People with a P60 form must pay Income Tax and, if a person's income is too small to warrant a P60 form, it is more difficult to claim social security benefits. People whose incomes are too small for them to pay Income Tax are the very people who want security benefits.

Mr. Pentland: As we have been doing, we shall continue to do everything possible to make this more widely understood. It is already widely known throughout the country. If there are any other possibilities we shall gladly consider them.

Shop Assistants

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Social Security what are the numbers of self-employed shop assistants at present compared with the numbers at some convenient date in 1965.

Mr. Pentland: I regret that this information is not available, but shop assistants working more than eight hours a week would not normally be classified as self-employed for insurance purposes.

Mr. Moyle: Will my hon. Friend take steps to make sure that this information becomes available? I have been led to believe that the number of self-employed shop assistants is increasing, and such persons do not qualify for unemployment benefit or industrial injury benefit.

Mr. Pentland: We have no information on that point, but if my hon. Friend can provide specific instances where hardship is involved we shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Biffen: Although the hon. Gentleman may not have any information available, the development of self-employment in the service trades was widely forecast by hon. Members on this side of the House at this time last year. Cannot the hon. Gentleman have a sample survey made to see what grounds the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) has for asking this Question.

Mr. Pentland: A sample survey is currently being undertaken, but analysis of National Insurance cards exchanged in the summer months shows a diminishing number of self-employed persons in the distributive trades in recent years. This is probably associated with the growth of self-service firms.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the Minister give us any information as to the scope of the survey and when we are likely to see any result from it.

Mr. Pentland: Not at the moment.

Unmarried Mothers

Dr. Gray: asked the Minister of Social Security what instructions had been issued to her officers on the policy to be followed in dealing with unmarried mothers who apply for and remain on

Assistance while their children are under school age.

Mr. Pentland: Supplementary benefit is paid in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend without requiring the mother to register for work and is continued so long as it is needed. Special attention is paid to welfare needs and steps are taken, where necessary, to get the putative father to meet his responsibilities.

Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that some unmarried mothers allege that moral attitudes are displayed by officials in dealing with them, and that these officials try to persuade them to divulge the name of the father of the child and also to return to work while their children are still young? Does my hon. Friend agree that any of this should happen? If it is happening, will he condemn it?

Mr. Pentland: Here again, if my hon. Friend has any facts with regard to this matter, we shall gladly look into them, but I can assure him that it is untrue that claims to supplementary benefit from unmarried mothers are discouraged. They are dealt with normally in respect to the assessment of benefit, and when the mother is looking after dependent children under 16 years of age our officers are instructed not to make registration for work a condition for the receipt of benefit.

Social Benefits (Report)

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make a statement on her policy with regard to universal or selective social benefits, in view of the report of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a copy of which has been sent to her.

Miss Herbison: The various social security schemes for which I am responsible combine elements of both universality and selectivity. The Government will continue to bring forward measures arising from their review of social security as and when they are ready to do so. Due note is taken of any studies carried out in this field.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this report states that more than half of the £6,500 million


which is spent on the social services goes to those who do not really require it and that half the people themselves think that they do not deserve the money? Is not any policy wrong which results in those who need the services least getting as much as those who need them most?

Miss Herbison: I have read the whole report and, as I said, due note is being taken of it. But there are many other factors which one must take into account before deciding on greater selectivity of benefits.

Family Expenditures Survey (Pensioners)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Social Security what action she proposes to take to correct the imbalance reported in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February 1967 for pensioner group of households, averaging one and a half persons per household, which shows an excess of expenditure (150s. a week) over income (137s. a week).

Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply on 6th March to the hon. Lady, the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward).—[Vol. 742, c. 184–5.]

Mr. Ridsdale: As many pensioners now have to eat into their savings, does the right hon. Lady think that it is fair that such pensioners should pay an education charge on the rates? When will the Government honour their election pledge to take teachers' salaries off the rates so as to prevent these pensioners having to pay this charge?

Miss Herbison: The question of the cost of education will be answered if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. On the question of pensioners eating into their savings, the supplementary benefits which began on 28th November have made possible much more generous treatment of capital, so old people now do not have to eat into their savings at the same rate as they had previously under the hon. Gentleman's Government. Also, if old people have quite large savings it is not wrong to expect them to use some of them in their retirement.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Lady aware, however, that the Answer which she gave to me was unsatisfactory? Is she aware, with regard to people with small savings, that her answer about large savings does not fit in with the Answer which she gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport)? Is she aware that, with an ever-increasing rise in the cost of living, the anxiety of people with small savings who have to dig into those savings is terrible? When will we get one of these reports on which people have been sitting for such a long time?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Miss Herbison: On this occasion, we did not wait for reports. We have already dealt with this question of elderly people. If old people have no other source of income, they can have £800 of savings and still get the full benefits of supplementary pensions, so the improvements which we have given to old people are considerable.

Earnings-related Supplement

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Social Security why the earnings-related supplement to flat-rate unemployment benefit does not apply to those who return from working for a period abroad, even though they maintained their voluntary contributions to the National Health and Pension Scheme.

Mr. Pentland: Entitlement to earnings-related supplement is not secured by the payment of flat-rate contributions but by the amount of an employee's reckonable earnings in the relevant Income Tax year. Earnings, including those of employees returning from work abroad, count for this purpose, and for liability to pay the graduated contributions needed to finance the supplement, only if they are earnings from which tax is deductible through P.A.Y.E.

Mr. Ridsdale: But as the hon. Gentleman has already admitted that this is possibly unfair and an interim measure, would he please do something for these people before the Social Security Review reports?

Mr. Pentland: As both my right hon. Friend and I have often said, we recognise that there are certain imperfections


in the earnings-related supplements scheme, as it is an interim scheme, and all relevant factors will be taken into consideration in the Review.

European Economic Community

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Social Security what study she has made of whether Article 101 of the Treaty of Rome would enable the European Commission to enforce the harmonisation of social security systems with the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.

Miss Herbison: Article 101 was taken into consideration together with all other relevant provisions of the Treaty of Rome in our studies of its social security implications. The Article gives the Commission no direct power to enforce the harmonisation of social security systems; decisions under this Article rest with the Council.

Mr. Macmillan: What consideration has been given to the fact that in the United Kingdom the main burden of the social security finance falls on the taxpayer while in the E.E.C. it is on the employer and hence on goods? Will this, in her view, lead to an indication of a decision by the Commission that this could interfere with competition, to use the words of Article 101?

Miss Herbison: I do not think so, because I understand that in Germany in 1964 the scheme of family allowances was transferred from employer-financing to Exchequer-financing and nothing at all was done at that time by the Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Old People's Homes, Gateshead

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health if he will give loan sanction for the additional two old people's homes in Gateshead in order that the complete programme of six homes may be built and the present former workhouse accommodation be demolished.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): Yes, Sir. The county borough council were so informed on 1st March.

Mr. Randall: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that

his decision will help the local authority in improving the conditions for the old people of Gateshead?

Drugs (Costs)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost of drugs used in National Health Service hospitals for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966, respectively, and the proportion of total hospital expenditure which these costs represent.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): £16 million, £.17·8 million and an estimated £18·9 million in the three years 1964–65 to 1966–67; representing 2·94 per cent., 2·96 per cent. and 2·89 per cent., respectively, of total hospital expenditure.

Mr. Fisher: Against the generally rising trend in prices overall in this country, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it really is remarkable that prices of pharmaceutical supplies for hospitals have actually been falling?

Mr. Robinson: I would have said that the figures suggest that as a proportion of total hospital expenditure there was a remarkable consistency in the three years, which I agree is not by any means unsatisfactory.

Mr. Manuel: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there could, nevertheless, be savings if we had scientifically based pharmacists within hospital regions, where they could be attached to larger hospitals and be of use at the same time to smaller hospitals?

Mr. Robinson: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is proposing, but I do not think that there would be a saving if we were to abolish dispensing by chemists. That would not be the case according to my information.

Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm, so that we can get this matter into perspective, that his Department's figures show that the use of new drugs since 1955 has saved, in bed costs alone, about the equivalent of the whole hospital drug bill?

Mr. Robinson: I would not like to confirm or deny that statistic without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will place a Question on the Order Paper, I will be glad to answer it.

Cervical Cancer Sceening Facilities (Crawley)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the provision of cervical cancer screening facilities for all women at risk in Crawley.

Mr. Snow: A limited service for women at risk should be available in Crawley next month.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the very high proportion of women in the younger age group at risk in new towns like Crawley for whom screening can be particularly effective in preventing the development of cancer, is there some action which my hon. Friend can take to ensure that in areas like this greater priority is given, remembering that the women of Crawley have had to wait a very long time indeed for even this very limited service?

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend has been examining the position in new towns very actively and my hon. Friend may be pleased to know that, although there are difficulties about accommodation and technical services, it is hoped to expand this service towards the end of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

St. Teresa' Hospital, Wimbledon

Sir C. Black: asked the Minister of Health what is the cost per day to the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board of the beds paid for by the Board in St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital, Wimbledon.

Mr. K. Robinson: £4 12s. 11 d. per bed in 1965–66.

Sir C. Black: How does that figure compare with the average for maternity beds under the National Health Service?

Mr. Robinson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman how it compares with the average in that part of London covered by the South-West Metropolitan Region. The comparison should be per case and not per week, and the comparison is £57 4s. 8d. at St. Teresa's compared with

£49 8s. 10d. in cases in the South-West Metropolitan hospitals providing full medical and surgical services.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are these figures based on a stay of equal duration? In view of the fact that this hospital is acknowledged to render very good service, will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider his decision to withdraw National Health Service support?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. The average length of stay at St. Teresa's is 12 days, compared with nine days in the other
hospitals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] As to the merits of the case, I should prefer to deal with those when we reach a later Question on this matter.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is adequate maternity provision in this part of south-west London?

Mr. Robinson: I should prefer to deal with that also on the later Question.

Sir C. Black: asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated cost per day to the National Health Service of the new maternity beds at Roehampton which it is proposed to bring into service in place of the maternity beds at St. Teresa's, Wimbledon, which are at present paid for by the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. K. Robinson: About £6 per bed.

Sir C. Black: Why is it sensible to give up beds which are admitted by the regional hospital board to be perfectly satisfactory and which cost the National Exchequer much less and to replace them with beds which, in the light of the information which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, will cost the Treasury much more than the present beds?

Mr. Robinson: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the cost per case, which is the relevant statistic, will be less.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On which of these Questions will the right hon. Gentleman answer on the merits of the case?

Mr. Robinson: On Question No. 25, to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Royle):

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Health if he will instruct the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to continue paying for beds at St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I agree with the regional hospital board's decision to terminate its contractual arrangements for maternity beds with St. Teresa's at the end of 1967, when the new maternity unit in Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, is planned to open. The board has offered to contract with St. Teresa's for beds for other purposes, and I hope that the hospital will accept this offer.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is most unsatisfactory, as, indeed, have been his last replies to my hon. Friends? Is he aware that there is great local concern about this decision—a decision which not only appears to be unnecessary but which, in view of the replies which he has just given, seems utterly extravagant? Will he ask the regional hospital board to look at the whole position again?

Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman has cost in mind, then nothing would be more extravagant or, in my view, unreasonable than for the National Health Service to continue to spend something like £70,000 a year subsidising maternity beds in a private hospital for which there is no longer a National Health Service need.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of what he just said, there is very considerable local feeling in favour of this hospital and that many women who have attended this hospital have commented favourably on the service they have received? Will he not at least consider the possibility of putting off his decision for a year?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I know that this hospital has provided good service to the regional board, but the fact is that there will no longer be any need for the contractual use of these beds after the end of this year. It has been the policy of successive Ministers—and it is my policy—that maternity units should, wherever possible, form an integral part of a district general hospital. This is in the interests of the safety of mothers and babies.

Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Gentleman spell this out and say categorically that he is completely satisfied that at the end of this year there will be adequate maternity provision in this area of south-west London?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I am completely satisfied about that. Already the confinement rate in this area is 80 per cent., which is considerably higher than the Cranbrook-recommended figure of 70 per cent. In addition to the Roehampton beds, there will be 10 further beds at Queen Charlotte's Hospital allocated to this area for mothers from Richmond, and 12 beds will also be provided at the Kingston Hospital.

Sir C. Black: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a few months ago the St. Helier Hospital sent a notice to doctors in the area informing them that certain categories of maternity cases could not be guaranteed places in the hospitals in the area, which does not indicate that there is any sufficiency of beds or that there will be such a sufficiency in the area? Is he also aware that it must be a very long time indeed since such indignation has been raised in the district over this matter and that, for example, about 2,000 people on a recent Sunday afternoon attended a meeting in a local hall—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, we cannot have too long a supplementary question.

Mr. Robinson: I do not accept what was said last year as being a guide to what will happen when the new unit at Roehampton, which is a teaching, professorial unit—designed to teach doctors as well as midwives and nurses—is open. I am aware that there is considerable local feeling about this matter, but there is nearly always local feeling when any hospital unit is closed down. This one is not being closed down; there is merely being a termination of the contractual arrangements.

Mr. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Expenditure

Mr Fisher: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost of running National Health Service hospitals


for the year 1966; and how this compares with expenditure under this heading for the years 1965 and 1964, respectively.

Mr. K. Robinson: The cost is estimated at £652 million in England and Wales for 1966–67, compared with £600 million in 1965–66 and £544 million in 1964–65.

Mr. Fisher: In view of this rising trend in the cost of the hospital service, could the right hon. Gentleman say what his plans are to contain this rise in future? Would he also comment on an estimate that I have seen; that the cost of the service this year is likely to exceed £900 million?

Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better await the publication of the Estimates for this year. The real development of the hospital service has been at the rate of 2¾ per cent. per annum in the last two years, compared with 2 per cent. in 1964–65 over the previous year, allowing for a non-recurring amount of £4 million. This is the containment—if the hon. Gentleman prefers to use that phrase—of the development of the hospital service.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that the cost of treatment in some of our newest hospitals is estimated to be £70 a week as compared with £30 a week in some of our older hospitals? As a saving of 1 per cent. in hospital expenditure would amount to £8 million a year, would he tell the House what he is doing to intensify management efficiency studies to see if economies can be brought about?

Mr. Robinson: We are constantly endeavouring to achieve greater efficiency in the hospital service and work study is expanding all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Immigrants

Mr. Weatherill: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give priority to the granting of work permits to young people of British descent who wish to join their families now resident in Great Britain but are unable to do so as a result of immigration controls.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): The immigration control already

makes due allowance for claims to admission based on British descent or family unity, and I do not think it would be appropriate, in addition, to grant priority on those grounds when issuing vouchers.

Mr. Weatherill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many young children of people of Anglo-British descent—if that is the right term to use—are kept apart from their families as a result of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and that we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the Anglo communities throughout the world who helped us in the past to run and sustain our Empire? Does he not think that some consideration should be given to these people of British descent?

Mr. Fernyhough: Consideration is, of course, given, as I have indicated. Those under the age of 16 are allowed to come in without any difficulty at all. Special dispensation is generally given to those between 16 and 18, and up to the age of 21 this is also given if they are dependants. If they are not dependants but are already in employment, then it would be unfair to other Commonwealth citizens who have applied for vouchers if we gave them priority in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman is asking for priority to be given.

Wages and Salaries

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated number of wage and salary settlements that have been concluded to operate during the period of severe restraint; how many of these were notified to his Department; and what were the numbers of employees involved.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Twenty-one major settlements involving 1,300,000 workers have been reached since 1st January, 1967. Of these five, involving 550,000 workers, specified dates of operation during the period of severe restraint, but in two cases which have not satisfied the severe restraint criteria the date is being deferred until after the end of the period. All the settlements were notified to my Department.

Mr. Biffen: But is it the hon. Gentleman's proposition that these covered all the settlements that had been concluded?


Do they, for example, include the 42 settlements of which I have notified him in Written Questions Nos. 17 and 18 today?

Mr. Hattersley: We have no reason to assume that any significant number of settlements concluded during the period have not been notified to my Department.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Labour, under which Section of the Prices and Incomes Act, currently in force, he has informed the Association of Salaried Staffs, Executives and Technicians that they have a duty to inform his Department of pay increases which are thought to fall without the criteria for severe restraint.

Mr. Hattersley: The Association has not been so informed, although they are no doubt aware of the contents of paragraphs 37 and 38 of the November White Paper (Cmnd. 3150).

Mr. Biffen: A White Paper is a White Paper, but will the hon. Member confirm that there is no statutory obligation whatsover on Mr. Clive Jenkins and the Association of Salaried Staffs, Executives and Technicians to notify either the hon. Gentleman or his Ministry of any wage settlement they conclude?

Mr. Hattersley: My Ministry has constantly reiterated that there is no statutory obligation. Fortunately, most parties to wage bargains have agreed that they have some other duty and obligation to keep my Ministry informed.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the hon. Gentleman agree to publish a statement of the Government's definition of "national interest"?

Mr. Hattersley: The definition of "national interest" differs according to people's standards. I have no doubt that my definition and the hon. Gentleman's are quite different.

ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA (UNITED NATIONS)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate exploratory discussions with member States of the United Nations who have in the past provided forces for United Nations peace-keeping to find out if they

would take part in a United Nations force in Aden or South Arabia.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 6th March, it would be more appropriate in the first place for the recently appointed United Nations Mission to South Arabia to consider the possibility of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the area.—[Vol. 742, c. 1049.]

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Gentlemen on this side fully support Her Majesty's Government's intention to withdraw from Aden in 1968? But will he also accept that we believe that it is very important that a United Nations force or presence should be established after the period of withdrawal, and that it is urgent that discussions to this end should begin at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. But the first step is for the United Nations Mission to reach South Arabia. If the United Nations Mission, following its visit there, were to recommend that there should be a United Nations presence in South Arabia, either civil or military, Her Majesty's Government would certainly give the recommendation most serious consideration.

Mr. Doughty: Is the Minister of State aware that we have a treaty obligation with this State when we withdraw to enter into a defence agreement to see that law and order is maintained there, which is something that no United Nations force could ever do?

Mr. Thomson: The allegation that we have broken a pledge to South Arabia because of our refusal to conclude a defence agreement after independence has been made very frequently in this House, but it does not gain conviction by repetition.

Mr. Whitaker: Would it not be an admirable idea to get the United Nations to be responsible for the defence of the Persian Gulf as a whole?

Mr. Thomson: As I think I told my hon. Friend in regard to an earlier Question, that is a different question from that on the Order Paper.

Sir A. V. Harvey: What will happen if the United Nations are unable to put a force into Aden for safety?

Mr. Thomson: As I have just explained to the House, the first step is for the United Nations Mission to go there, study the situation, and see what recommendations it feels disposed to make.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what request he has received for British participation in a United Nations force to maintain law, order and the territorial integrity of the South Arabian Federation after the departure of British national forces in 1968; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. George Thomson: None, Sir.

Sir F. Bennett: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remark just now that if such a request were made Her Majesty's Government would give it serious consideration, since our main reasons for not leaving a small force behind are said to be economic, why is it cheaper to keep a British soldier in Aden wearing a blue hat rather than a khaki one?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the House should await the arrival of the United Nations Mission and see what it reports. If the Mission were to make a recommendation as to the usefulness of some United Nations presence, Her Majesty's Government, in the light of their well-known policy of supporting the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, would obviously give it serious consideration, but that would be a different matter from the kind of defence commitment and defence expenditure involved in our present military installations in South Arabia.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon, but is it not obvious that a United Nations force would be regarded as impartial and would avoid the suspicions which an ex-colonial Power such as ours naturally excites in this region?

Mr. Thomson: One of the reasons for our decision about the defence installations in South Arabia, apart from the question of expenditure raised by the hon. Member opposite, is that we have always taken the view that we should not seek to go on maintaining installations

in an area where we did not enjoy popular consent for them.

Mr. Royle: In view of the mounting chaos and the letter from Mr. Bayoomi-in The Times last week, will the Minister of State make arrangements for the Federal Government to be given adequate arms and equipment to defend themselves from both external and internal aggression when they receive independence after the end of this year?

Mr. Thomson: The details of the help we are giving the South Arabian Government to build up their own forces have been given on a number of occasions. I think that these arrangements are generous and consistent with the ability of the South Arabian Government to make the fullest use of the help being given.

Lord Balniel: If the right hon. Gentleman has not initiated discussions with the United Nations, has he initiated discussions with Aden's neighbouring States to try to get them to play a part in guaranteeing territorial integrity there after independence?

Mr. Thomson: The first thing here is for the United Nations Mission to go. A very important factor in the political viability of an independent South Arabian State will be its earliest possible recognition by the United Nations organisation, as well as recognition by other countries both in the region and outside it. But the first step is to make a success of the United Nations Mission.

HUNGARY AND ROUMANIA (BONDED DEBTS)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the position concerning negotiations about the Hungarian and Roumanian bonded debts; and whether the recent visit of Mr. Kosygin and the Prime Minister of Estonia to this country, which brought about an agreement concerning Baltic bonds, has affected discussions about the repayment of these other debts by countries allied with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. George Thomson: Exchanges are continuing about the Hungarian bonded debt. On the Roumanian bonded debt, I have nothing to add to my reply on


30th January. There is no connection between these negotiations and those with the Soviet Government.—[Vol. 740, c. 13.]

Sir W. Teeling: If Mr. Kosygin, coming here, sees that it is quite practical to pay off Baltic bonds and come to some kind of agreement in order to pay them, why cannot we persuade the Hungarians and Roumanians to do the same? The French, the Germans and the Swiss are doing so. The right hon. Gentleman told me recently that the whole idea was to have some kind of a package deal for the Roumanians. I gather that half of the package deal was dealt with a few days ago, but what has happened to the rest?

Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government have tried to make progress on all these debt questions since then, and we hope to report progress we have been able to make on the Soviet debt question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this matter I know, that he must not take the length of the discussions on the Hungarian debt to mean that there is no prospect of a successful outcome.

PRINCE SIHANOUK OF CAMBODIA

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider inviting Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia to make a State visit to the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Thomson: Recommendations for State guests are made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen and are under constant review.

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his reply. Does he not agree that, in view of the importance of Cambodia both geographically and economically in South-East Asia at the present time, he should give very careful consideration to advising Her Majesty to issue an invitation in the very near future?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. We attach very great importance to our good relations with Cambodia, and we were very glad that our diplomatic relationships were improved recently when our

ambassador at Phnom Penh presented his credentials, and when the Cambodian Chargé d'Affaires arrived in London after an absence of some time. The hon. Member should also know that it was hoped that Prince Sihanouk would have been able to dine with Her Majesty while in France earlier this year and that it was only because of an unfortunate conflict of engagements that he was unable to accept the invitation.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a State visit, whatever its other merits, might be regarded rather badly by our allies in S.E.A.T.O., who might feel that the solidarity of the organisation was in some doubt?

Mr. Thomson: It is important that we take all steps we can to improve good relations with countries in that region, whether they are in alliances with which we are associated or not. Some useful steps have been taken. The question of a State visit has to be given very careful consideration along with many other matters. I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the earlier cryptic Answer I gave.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Her Majesty's Government do not accept the proposition that it is impossible for us to be friendly with people who are not friendly with our allies?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend has put the point I was making very much more succinctly than I did.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Television Annunciators

Mr. Hamling: asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received on the installation of television sets in various rooms used by Members; and what reply he has sent.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the closed-circuit television system of annunciators which have been installed as an experiment in the new Star Chamber Court building.
The only representations received since the commencement of this experiment


have been for the installation of television annunciators in Members' Desk Rooms in Old Palace Yard and also at 54, Parliament Street. To make such installations would at present create a number of difficulties and it is thought that we should await the end of the 12-month experiment in Star Chamber Court before extending the system further.

Mr. Hamling: In view of the fact that the new television sets seem to be subfusc imitations of the old annunciators, will my right hon. Friend seek to provide facilities for hon. Members to see the new annunciator system in action?

Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend means the one we already have in the Star Court Chamber, the answer is that he can see it in action already. I am not sure what he means.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling)? Since the closed circuit television system is not proving very popular, does not my right hon. Friend think that this is an opportune time to allow hon. Members to see the new telex annunciators?

Mr. Crossman: I think that, on the whole, it is best that we should have this 12-month experiment and judge the situation at the end.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the disgraceful suggestion I have heard that there is to be a secret party vote on decimal coinage on Wednesday night in Room 14, which is no substitute for a free vote in this House, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for that meeting to be televised so that we can all be in on it?

Mr. Crossman: I was asked about television annunciators and not a television system.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, shortly before Christmas, this House, on a free vote, decided to disallow the experiment of closed circuit television in these premises? Is he further aware that it was a source of considerable adverse comment by many hon. Members on both sides when we returned after the Christmas Recess

to find that, lo and behold, we had closed circuit television all over the place, presumably for the purpose of duplicating the annunciators? Why were they put there? Why—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long enough question.

Mr. Crossman: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) is deliberately seeking to confuse the issue, but the problem of televising the proceedings in the Chamber is quite different from the problem of letting ourselves know who is speaking in the Chamber when we are outside it. It is to the latter point that I am referring.

Members' Facilities

Mr. Hamling: asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received on changes made in facilities for Members and members of their families in the Palace of Westminster; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Crossman: None, Sir. I am, however, aware that the new Members' Lounge is not entirely satisfactory, but it is intended to make considerable improvements to it later this year.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend consult his wife on this matter? Is not he aware that this room must he about the tattiest in the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that it is not entirely satisfactory, but I suggest that it is not so much my wife I have to consult as the wives who come from all over the provinces and who need somewhere to rest—which is something they have not got now. We are trying to make this room a reasonable place for them to rest in.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members have the habit of taking off their shoes and that in many respects this is very disagreeable?

Mr. Crossman: I always feel that one can learn something new at Question Time. I have learnt something new today.

Financial Statistics and Estimates

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will request the Services Committee to consider the appointment of a Parliamentary accountant to assess, at the request of hon. Members, the presentation of financial statistics and estimates submitted to the House by Ministers in answers, questions and in speeches.

Mr. Crossman: The Library Sub-Committee is at present engaged in an inquiry about long-term plans for the Library, and the question of the addition of a Parliamentary accountant to the Library staff to help Members might well be considered in connection with this inquiry.

Mr. Mills: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presents Government figures for expenditure, based on the comic proposition of prices at 1964 levels? Is he aware that the Defence Secretary also produces figures in an equally comical way? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this in consultation with the Committee in order to provide some method by which Ministers can be stopped from juggling with published figures?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman's Question on the Order Paper was a serious Question to which I gave a serious Answer. His supplementary question was not serious.

Scottish Agriculture (Specialist Committee)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council why he will not move to appoint a specialist committee on agriculture for Scotland similar to the one for England and Wales.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a specialist committee for agriculture for Scotland similar to the one appointed for England and Wales.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. I would prefer to see how the existing experimental Committees work before considering change or additions.

Mr. Rankin: Whilst not thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a widely held view in Scotland at the moment, due to a recent electoral upset, that Scottish interests at Cabinet level do not receive the same treatment as English interests, particularly in regard to development and planning? Is he further aware that his reply just now provides some proof of that view?

Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that the fact that two Scottish hon. Members have been added to the Agriculture Committee should have satisfied even those who on our side of the House are most deeply concerned about the events of last week.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given no answer? I raised this matter during our debate on procedure before Christmas and, thanks to pressure from other hon. Members, two Scottish hon. Members have been added to a Committee whose review does not cover the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. This is an extraordinary situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Committee's remit could be extended to cover the administration of agriculture in Scotland?

Mr. Crossman: The Committee has its terms of reference for the rest of this Session and I believe that it would be a mistake to disturb them half-way through. The question of whether further specialist committees should be created is for consideration when we come to the next Session.

Mr. Maclennan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might assist the existing Committee in its consideration of British agriculture if it was able to bring before it members of the Scottish Department?

Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to consider that but if I remember rightly the terms of reference are about the English Ministry of Agriculture and not the Scottish Department.

Visitors (Hansard)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made by the House of Commons Services Committee with the


plan to enable a visitor to the House to address an envelope in the Post Office in the Central Lobby and pay an inclusive fee, thereby ensuring that on the day following a copy of Hansard is posted to him which covers the day on which he listened to the debate.

Mr. Crossman: Order forms for the obtaining of copies of Hansard are on display at the entrances to all the Galleries. Any visitor who wishes to obtain a copy which covers the day on which he listened to a debate can take one of these forms for posting to the Stationery Office.

Questions (Provisional List)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to refer to the Services Committee the possibility of posting each day in the No Lobby, before the Question hour, a provisional list of Questions to be answered together.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not a fact that there is at present a provisional list which is circulated to Ministers? Would it not be a convenience for hon. Members on both sides of the House if an additional copy of the list were posted in the Lobby?

Mr. Crossman: When I saw the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I considered it very seriously. I think that, on balance, the answer is "No", because it is only an informal list, which may be changed at the last moment. But hon. Members should know that anyone interested can speak to the Second Clerk Assistant behind Mr. Speaker's Chair during Prayers or at the Table during Question hour. This information can, therefore, be obtained by hon. Members.

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Winnick— Question No. 42.

Television Facilities

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord President of the Council if the television facilities for televising the Commons have been dismantled.

Mr. Crossman: No facilities for televising the Commons have ever been in-

stalled, except temporarily for the last Opening of Parliament.

Mr. Winnick: Would it not have been wiser to have kept even these facilities, as sooner or later common sense will prevail and our proceedings will be televised?

Mr. Crossman: That is a matter of opinion. Until next Session we are bound by the decision which the House reached in its recent debate on procedure.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee which reported on this matter to the House is still in existence and that it would, presumably, be competent for our Committee to consider the new situation which would arise if and when an experiment were held in another place? Can he also say what the Government's view is on how that experiment is to be paid for?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the report from another place on the possibility of an experiment, but I do not imagine that any financial difficulty will arise. I know how resourceful are the members of our own Select Committee and they will always do what they want, considering their terms of reference.

Sir S. McAdden: Will the Lord President of the Council use his influence to try to save his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) from his own enthusiasm? Has not the hon. Gentleman reliably been reported in the Press to have been seen in this Chamber poking his tongue out and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A foolish question.

Mr. Mendelson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, who are always so keen on maintaining the sovereignty of the House of Commons should seem to take no notice at all of a decision reached by the House on a free vote? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will accept that vote and will not move on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: This is a Question about dismantling.

Mr. Crossman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although I need


not give it. The decision will be maintained. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) that minorities have their right of hope, if not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will realise, of expectation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Homeless Families

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of increasing interest in the problem of homeless families, he is taking action to co-ordinate the activities of the central and local government services involved.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): The Ministers concerned issued a joint circular to local authorities on 31st October, 1966, giving detailed guidance on the ways in which local services should work together to meet the needs of homeless families. The authorities were asked to report to the Minister of Health by 31st March, 1967, on the action they propose. Any necessary further action will be taken in the light of their reports.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome that Answer. Will my right hon. Friend understand that this is a most urgent matter? Can we expect action as soon as he gets a report?

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is very urgent. We are expecting an important report and we shall act on it as soon as we can when we receive it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

British Museum

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future of the National Reference Library of Science and Invention with a view to eliminating the uncertainty of the Trustees of the British Museum as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): The provision of a new building for the Library is a matter for the Minister of

Public Building and Works, with whom I am in close touch on the various problems which arise. The question of the space required is under review by a working party representing the Museum, the Treasury, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and my Department.

Dame Irene Ward: Why, when I put the Question down for answer by the Minister of Public Building and Works, was it transferred to the right hon. Lady, if she has no responsibility?

Miss Lee: Perhaps the explanation is that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is responsible for fabric and my Ministry is responsible for content. The hon. Lady is well known to have an interest in both, so there is always a doubt about whether such a Question from her should go to one or other Ministry.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered the criticisms of the Government contained in the 1966 Report of the Trustees of the British Museum; why Her Majesty's Government have failed to meet their obligations; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Report reveals encouraging progress in staffing, acquisitions and physical reconstruction and improvement. The next few years should see considerable further developments. On the question of the fulfilment of Her Majesty's Government's obligations, I would point out to the hon. Lady that the net vote to the Museum has almost doubled between 1963–64 and 1967–68. The plans for the new Library approved in 1964 were subject to consultation with the authorities concerned. A protest has been received and this is now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prisons (Execution Apparatus)

Mr. John Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is to be done with the execution gallows from Her Majesty's Prisons at Pentonville and Wandsworth.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The execution apparatus at Pentonville and at all other


prisons except Wandsworth has been destroyed.

Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever may be the position about the death penalty for murder, the death penalty remains the penalty for high treason and that it may be necessary at the end of the Rhodesian rebellion?

Miss Bacon: In theory, the death penalty is still retained for treason, arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards and piracy with violence. However, for more than a century there have been no executions in peace time for offences other than murder.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Could this apparatus be made available to the Patronage Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Lance-Corporal D. Wainwright (Compassionate Leave)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has satisfied himself that 22779047 Lance-Corporal D. Wainwright, now serving with Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, in Aden, and a constituent of the honourable Member for St. Helens, can afford the air fare, £63, to the United Kingdom, so that he can be with, his family whilst his wife undergoes a major operation at the Military Hospital, Aldershot; and whether he will reconsider his decision not to meet the cost of Lance-Corporal Wainwright's flight home.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): For reasons which I have explained to my hon. Friend, compassionate leave would not be justified in this case.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that leave has been granted, providing that Lance-Corporal Wainwright will pay his own fare home from Aden? Is he aware that Lance-Corporal Wainwright's first application was rejected outright on the ground that he could not be spared, but that on the second application he was allowed compassionate leave provided that he paid the £63 fare home? Is not this a disgrace and is it not time the Department stopped shilly-shallying and treated Servicemen with justice?

Mr. Boyden: Compassionate leave is allowed only in cases where a soldier's presence at home is considered to be essential. In this case I am very pleased to say that, after an exploratory operation last Thursday, Mrs. Wainwright was discharged from hospital on Saturday. I understand that a major operation will not now be necessary. The matter was given very careful and sympathetic consideration.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people think that the Services take a very compassionate view of most of these applications, but that in some cases like this, unfortunately, the details get into the papers and the Services, perhaps wrongly, are given a bad name?

Mr. Boyden: I can speak quite objectively about this matter. I have been at the Ministry of Defence for only two months. I have been very impressed with the care taken by the staff to look into all cases and I give my personal attention to all the details of every compassionate case which comes on my desk.

Polaris Submarines (Missiles)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of replacing Polaris by Poseidon missiles in the four new Polaris submarines.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Can it be assumed that the Government have no intention of adding to the already enormous cost, of more than £300 million, of the Polaris submarines, which are likely to be obsolete when they come into commission?

Mr. Foley: I cannot accept the premises on which the question is based.

Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend give a clear answer and say whether it is the intention of the Government to do this or not?

Mr. Foley: To do what?

Mr. Heffer: What it says in the Question.

Mr. Foley: The Answer which I gave originally was, "No, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Rhodesia (Currency Restrictions)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present currency restrictions placed upon British visitors to Rhodesia.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): As announced by the Treasury on 1st December, 1965, no facilities for travel to Rhodesia are allowed except for approved official or business purposes.

Mrs. Knight: What possible right has the Treasury to withhold permission for people to spend their own money and their full travel allowance to visit their own relatives in Rhodesia? Is it not overbearing and arrogant to treat people in this way?

Mr. MacDermot: Not at all. The exchange control restrictions, of which these are part, are a very important part of our sanctions policy.

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will increase the allowance for personal gifts to residents of Rhodesia to an aggregate of £50 from any one donor per annum.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Bell: Why not? Is not this also very harsh? Is it not the case that when the £50 was laid down it was considered that there was an emergency which would last rather a short time? Now that it is dragging on, ought not the allowance to be put on an annual basis, which is surely what the Government originally had in mind?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. For the reasons which I gave in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), the longer this goes on, the more important it is that we should enforce these provisions. In cases of genuine hardship it is always possible to give special treatment, but as a general rule we ought to maintain this limit.

Leasehold Reform

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the introduction of the Leasehold Reform Bill has caused a heavy

depreciation in the value of property held subject to long leases, and that in cases where the owners of such property had died before the introduction of the Bill but whose executors have not yet been able to realise such property, an estate may be seriously prejudiced; and whether he will take steps to grant special relief in such special cases.

Mr. MacDermot: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the Minister aware that it is grossly unfair to levy taxes on the basis of a valuation which the Government themselves have seriously depreciated? Cannot he give an undertaking that this matter will be dealt with?

Mr. MacDermot: I can give an undertaking that the matter will be looked at, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot go further than that. There are arguments both ways on this.

ROADS

Pedestrian Crossings and "Stop" Signs

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware of the considerable delay in approval being granted for all types of pedestrian crossings and "Stop" signs to be erected; and if she will devolve upon local authorities decisions on these local matters.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Applications for pedestrian crossings and "Stop" signs are dealt with as quickly as possible, but delay sometimes arises because of the need to obtain a good deal of detailed site information.
Control over these measures was withdrawn from local authorities some years ago because zebra crossings and "Stop" signs had proliferated to a degree where their value was impaired. But we are watching the situation carefully and will consider whether the time is yet ripe for a change.

Sir B. Janner: Will my hon. Friend realise that it is extremely important that this matter should be dealt with expeditiously? As the local authorities are in


a position to deal with other matters, why not this?

Mr. Morris: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that these matters are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, but it is also important to decide on a national standard for the establishment of these sites. For that reason the procedures are dealt with as they are now.

Mr. Webster: Can the Minister say what he considers is a reasonable time in this case?

Mr. Morris: What is a reasonable time would vary according to the number of inquiries which have to be made. The police have to be consulted; the local authorities have to be consulted; statistics of traffic have to be obtained. In order to come to a right judgment all these matters have to be taken into account.

Mr. Molloy: But this is the very point. As my hon. Friend said, the police have to be consulted. The local authorities do not consult themselves: the borough engineer does it as to 90 per cent, of what is done by the local authorities. Surely, in the interests of efficiency and reasonable speed not only in getting these matters put on the local statute book but introduced in practice, this responsibility should be given to the local authorities?

Mr. Morris: I think that if my hon. Friend was listening to the Answer which I gave he must have heard me say that we were watching the situation carefully, and whether the time is right for a change, and also canvassing some of the problems my hon. Friend has mentioned. We want a speedy decision, but at the same time we want to avoid undue proliferation, which occurred some years ago.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether any application has been made by the Minister to answer Question No. 57?

Mr. Speaker: I think the answer to the hon. Member is, no.

ADEN (SERVICEMEN'S CHILDREN)

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for the reception of children of British Servicemen flown out to Aden for the Easter holidays.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): These children will be joining Service families who are already covered by security arrangements on the spot. There are about 3,000 children in Aden at the moment and the temporary addition of about 400 to that number will not add significantly to the security problem.
While the decision whether or not to bring out their children must be for individual parents in the light of their individual circumstances, I think that they would be wise to take account of the High Commissioner's advice when reaching their decision.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that although the children of British civilian families and those of Service families may live in very different conditions it is very bad indeed for the morale of the British community if the military authorities appear to be in public conflict with the advice given by the civil authorities? Surely he should do more than merely ask them to take the advice—but heed the advice—of the High Commissioner.

Mr. Healey: With respect to my right hon. Friend, the High Commissioner was giving advice to civilian families, often living in insecure areas, but his advice was not that they should not have their children out, but to take the background of not and terrorism into account in considering whether they should have their children out there for Easter.

Mr. Powell: Are we to take it, from the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the advice of the High Commissioner, that he is dissociating himself from the advice alleged to have been given by the Army commander, that so far as he is concerned there is no reason for Service families to alter any plans they may have made?

Mr. Healey: No. The advice of the High Commissioner is absolutely clear to


the children of civilian families. These families are living in very different circumstances, some of them in very insecure areas, some in secure areas; for some it would not be easy to make alternative arrangements for their children in the United Kingdom at short notice; and some will have an early opportunity of seeing their children again, while others will not. I think that in the circumstances it is right to give the individual some right to decide what to do.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not downright foolish to send the children, in the first place, to such a danger area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that very deep concern is felt in this country over this matter?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I am very well aware of the concern which is felt. It is always a difficult question, particularly when one is considering the morale of our forces, which, I am sure, we all have at heart, for the Government to decide that it is right that families should be interfered with, but we will, of course, keep the situation permanently under the most careful watch, and if it seems right to change the decisions we have taken so far we will change them.

Mr. Goodhart: When the Secretary of State talks about secure and insecure areas would be consider telling the Service families what a secure area is? Would he say, for example, that Ma'alla, where so many Service families live, is secure?

Mr. Healey: I am not prepared to say what is a secure area and what is not. It differs very much from one part of Aden to another, and even from one street to another.

Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a difference of advice here? The High Commissioner's advice to the staff was against bringing out the children of civilian families, I take it; whereas the Army commander considers that so far as he is concerned no advice was needed. The Secretary of State has associated himself with the former. In that case, he is dissociating himself from the latter.

Mr. Healey: No. With respect, that is a pedantic and totally unjustified remark.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Army has accepted responsibility for the security of those who are its children, that it is highly important that we should not break up Service families when the parents are abroad, and that he should not allow himself to be "bounced" by these questions, or by the newspapers, into inter-ferring with this decision?

Mr. Healey: I have no intention of allowing myself to be "bounced" by anybody. At the same time, the House must recognise that this is an extremely difficult and often a dangerous situation. The Government have a duty, as well as as a right, to keep it permanently under review, and at any time when it is right to do so to change the existing plans

Lord Balniel: I accept this is a most difficult matter, but in view of the apparent divergence of advice from the civilian and the military authorities is  not really urgent for the Government  themselves to give as clear advice  possible to the soldiers?

Mr. Healey: With respect, there is: conflict of advice at all. The High Commissioner does not regularly get in touch with the British civilian residents there, to tell them what it is right that they should take into consideration. The G.O.C. often has, and does repeatedly. There is no conflict between their statements. I think that it is unjustifiable pedantry to assume that there is.

MALTA

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): With permission, Sir, I should like to make a statement.
We warmly welcome the statement issued by the Prime Minister of Malta yesterday evening.
In this statement he said that, without withdrawing the objections that they have raised, the Malta Government have decided to let the revised British plan a; a whole go forward. He further stated to quote his own words, that
in the light of these considerations, the administrative restrictions imposed on the British forces will be withdrawn at once, and the Bill to amend the Visiting Forces Act will not be proceeded with.


Dr. Borg Olivier also stated that if it becomes evident that the hopes of an adequate expansion of employment are not likely to be realised, the Malta Government must then feel free to ask the British Government to review the position. We are, of course, always in close touch with the Malta Government.
During my talks with the Prime Minister of Malta we agreed, subject to mutual acceptance of the package deal as a whole, that a Joint Mission should be appointed to report to both Governments on urgent steps to strengthen the industrial base in Malta and on measures for retraining and the creation of job opportunities. We also agreed to the appointment of a Joint Steering Committee to follow closely and report to both Governments on the progress achieved.
We agreed that our two Governments would give serious consideration to the recommendations of both these bodies. I readily confirm that we would be ready to discuss such reports with the Government of Malta whenever they so wished.
Like the Prime Minister of Malta, my right hon. Friend and I are glad that the danger of a tragic breach between Britain and Malta has been averted. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to the unbroken continuance of our longstanding and intimate relationship.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heath: We are glad that a settlement has now been reached in the dispute between the two Governments, and pleased that the final proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put forward and the statement of the Prime Minister of Malta have made this possible. I am sure that the House and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman are also grateful for the part played in reaching a settlement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
I asked last Friday whether the Secretary of State would take into account the anxieties expressed by the Government of Malta as to whether the recommendations of the Joint Mission could be put into effect sufficiently quickly so as to provide employment after the 18 months of the serious rundown began.
The Prime Minister of Malta, in his statement, said that he claims the right to ask the Government to review the posi-

tion at that point. Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the British Government will give every request by the Prime Minister of Malta the most careful consideration?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I read in the newspapers about the action of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). If he played a part in helping to persuade Dr. Borg Olivier to come to the conclusion that he did, I am very grateful to him. His views have throughout been rather different from those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who expressed quite different views on Friday. I must say that, whatever part anyone has played in this, the decision was Dr. Borg Olivier's alone. He had to bear the burden and responsibility of it, and nothing should be done to detract from that.
On the question of any approach to us by the Malta Government in 18 months or at any other time, in the light of the reports of the Joint Mission, we should, of course, be interested in anything that the Malta Government said to us and give the most serious consideration, as I said in my statement, to anything to which they drew our attention.

Mr. Driberg: While reiterating today the tributes to my right hon. Friend which some of us paid to him on Friday in rather less happy circumstances, may I ask him one question? Did Dr. Borg Olivier at any time demand or insist that there should be no discharges until alternative jobs had been provided?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that now that we have reached a happy conclusion perhaps I should not make comments on what were detailed and private talks. Many things were said during the course of the talks, which, in one way and another, went on for about three weeks. I think that we had better leave it where it is.

Mr. John Page: May I ask two questions? First, have any changes been made about the future of the Royal Malta Artillery since the talks began?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman put in hand quickly a new appraisal of the dockyard dispute between Baileys and the other parties?
I am certain that until this dispute is put on one side the dockyard cannot


make a full and proper contribution to the recovery of Malta's economy.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The rephased rundown involves keeping the Royal Malta Artillery in Malta for an extra two years.
With regard to the dockyard, we made proposals which we think were realistic and, indeed, generous to Malta, but as litigation is pending between the Government and Bailey Bros. I think that I should not speak in any greater detail than that.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not all of us are happy about the arrangements made with Malta? Is he further aware that Dr. Borg Olivier does not seem to have accepted anything? He said at London Airport at half-past two this afternoon that he did not quite accept all the British Government's proposals. Would my right hon. Friend tell the House, in the light of that statement, what the actual defence savings will be over the next eighteen months in question?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I have read reports on the tape about what Dr. Borg Olivier said. I prefer to rely upon what he said after great consideration in a written statement which he had the kindness to send to me before he published it.
With regard to the basic saving in the rundown in Malta, the aim is to save about half the present cost of £12½ million per year, and we shall now achieve this after a period one year longer than under the earlier proposed rundown. In other words, it will be at the end of the fifth year instead of at the end of the fourth year.
We shall also be saving about £15 million over the present rephased rundown compared with not running down at all. We shall, therefore, save even on the rundown that we shall be making. But the prime thing is that we reach our target no longer than one year later than was originally envisaged.

Mr. Powell: What is the difference in the next financial year?

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is very hard to work out sums like this. Say there had been a breakdown in the talks. The

amount of the stores that we had not got out, and which would have been left, the cost of rehousing the men here in a hurry, and so on, would have had to be put in. They are unknown things. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind a complete and sudden withdrawal of our forces.

Mr. Powell: In accordance with the White Paper.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In accordance with the original White Paper?

Mr. Powell: The Defence White Paper Estimates.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It has cost us about £10 million of local expenditure as the cost of rephasing the rundown compared with the original proposal, but if we had had to do a withdrawal there would have been many other factors in the sum to be taken into account.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the skill and patience with which he has conducted these negotiations have earned the gratitude of all who care for Malta? It has been a very good show.

Mr. Fisher: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been less generous than he usually is? Would he not agree that it is very much more difficult to settle a problem when negotiations have already broken down than when they are still in progress?
The decision by the Malta Prime Minister, which we all greatly welcome, owes a great deal to the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

Mr. Gordon Walker: I have no reason to doubt that. If what I read in some of the newspapers this morning is true, certainly we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. But we should not express gratitude to him in such a way that we detract from the gratitude that we owe to Dr. Borg Olivier for a very difficult decision.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Because of the experience which my right hon. Friend has gained in the negotiations, and in view of the substantial sum which has been saved, will he hold himself in readiness to go to Singapore?

Mr. James Griffiths: May I join in the tributes to my right hon. Friend for dealing with what all of us know has been a very difficult problem in Malta? I was a member of the Round Table Conference and know something about Malta's problems. May I ask whether the Joint Mission has any time limit set for its report? Will it consider, among other problems which will some day have to be faced, what level of population can be sustained in an economical and viable state in Malta?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. No one knows better than he does the problems and intricacies involved in conducting discussions of this kind.
The Joint Mission will have very wide terms of reference. Nothing relevant to the way in which Malta can tackle its problems will be excluded. There will not be a time limit, but we expect the Mission to report fairly quickly. Then the subsequent work will be conducted by a continuing Steering Committee, which should consist of high officials from both sides. It is better to leave it flexible in this way.

Sir W. Teeling: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Baileys. There is no doubt that nothing can be completely settled in Malta until we have got the Bailey question out of everything. Four years is surely a bit long. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether some agreement cannot be reached within the next few months? Otherwise, we shall get nowhere.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We are aware of this and have gone into it in the most minute detail, but an agreement depends upon two people. Both need to move. I very much hope that some agreement can be reached. I do not want to say more than that.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In bringing British forces home from the Far East, Aden, and possibly Germany, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government bear in mind that in the event of the Army finding difficulty, either with barracks or married quarters, they should give high priority to making full use of the existing facilities at Malta?

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is more of a general defence question which should be directed to my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman, both on Friday and today, has referred specifically to a package deal. Can he give an assurance today, in view of past misunderstandings—and I am being quite neutral—that the agreement, to which he has referred as a package deal, will be adhered to for its full duration, in the letter and spirit, whatever the change of economic circumstances here?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Certainly, on our part, and I have no doubt at all that it will also operate on the part of the Government of Malta. The whole situation is perfectly clear to both sides.

Mr. Dickens: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the terms of the revised defence reductions proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Malta Government and their implications.
I will be very brief in giving you my cogent reasons for this request, Mr. Speaker. They are, first, that Dr. Borg Olivier's acceptance of the British Government's proposals is ambiguous and should be further clarified. Secondly, the revised terms involve the Government in needless additional defence spending, amounting to about £10 million, in Malta over the next four years—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not argue the merits of what he seeks to raise.

Mr. Dickens: I will try to avoid doing so, Mr. Speaker. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend has given the House no indication of any equivalent Maltese concessions for mobilising their own considerable private resources on the island. Fourthly, there are wider implications affecting our overseas defence policy in Singapore and Aden, which will be greatly handicapped by these concessions made by my right hon. Friend.
Finally, I need scarcely say that before taking this step I have given the matter the most serious consideration. I take this action from the most sincere motives, as I believe that this settlement is not


a fair one for this country or ultimately for Malta.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the terms of the revised defence reductions proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Malta Government and their implications.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, for having informed me this morning that he might seek to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9, after he had heard the statement. Even on the most generous interpretation of Standing Order No. 9, I do not think that the situation now qualifies as being, in the words of one of my predecessors, "… an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or foreign affairs".
I do not think therefore, that I can allow the application.

SINGLE WOMEN (DEPENDENT RELATIVES)

3.54 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West): I beg to move,
That this House notes the burden of maintaining dependent relatives, usually elderly parents, borne by thousands of single women, and that in carrying out a filial duty the daughter is performing a service which otherwise would have to be undertaken by social security and public welfare services; that this frequently involves many years of financial and physical strain; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action to lighten these burdens by providing new social security benefits, and urges welfare and housing authorities locally to assist single women in this situation with such help that they can go on caring for their relatives at home without undue stress.
It is a matter of great good fortune to me to be selected first for the third time in two years in the Private Members' Ballot. On the last occasion I moved a Motion relating to the needs of mentally handicapped children, and today I have the pleasure of moving a Motion relating to the needs of another small group in our society who are often forgotten. It is a good thing that in this House we should remember those small groups in our society whose social needs are so often neglected.
Today in social security we face the break-up of many of the old considerations relating to the Poor Law. I am reminded of the Minority Report to the 1909 Commission on the Poor Law which advocated the break-up of the Poor Law and the substitution of a system whereby individual necessitous groups in society ought to have their need considered in their own right. This is one of those groups. Society today is more and more identifying special categories of need.
There is another point relative to this consideration, and that is the changing nature of the population. One hundred years ago it might have been said that one of the most necessitous groups in our society were children in need of care, and particularly orphans. I have in mind the fact that in 1857, in the Liverpool Workhouse, the largest single group was of 1,000 orphans. That situation has changed and we now face a society in which children are cared for but where old and ageing people are not


cared for as well as they should be. This is particularly relevant to this Motion.
There is another general consideration, too, and that is the status of women. The first public speech that I ever made was over 40 years ago on the need for equal pay for women.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hamling: That was before my hon. Friend was born.
Today, we carry on the struggle for women's rights. This is a continuous struggle. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has left the Chamber. Her mother was one of the pioneers in my home town in this sphere of women's rights. Today's debate is part of this struggle for women's rights in a man's world. How often a woman's career is sacrificed because there is a family to be cared for, and it falls to the daughter to do it and not the son.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security knows about this from personal experience. We in this country have a pattern of family life very different from that of peasant communities with extended families where the care of old people is part and parcel of the ordinary day-to-day family life. In the English family the young leave home, leaving the caring of the elderly to others, either to the State or perhaps with a sister who does not get married.
This bears very heavily upon women, particularly professional women, because a great many of these women have to continue with their jobs, very often at salaries inferior to those of their male colleagues, and at the same time have to look after a house and an ageing relative. They have two jobs for the price of one. A great many working-class women do this, and I would say that very often the financial sacrifice and financial hardship is greater than that of the professional woman.
Many women work for very low wages. I understand that the average wage for women is £9 2s., which is very inferior to that paid to men. They have to cope with this low income, and they have no money to spare. They are living in poverty, the kind of concealed poverty about which a great many people have become agitated recently.
I have to declare an interest in the debate in that I am a member of the committee of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. The National Council has drawn considerable attention to these needs since its foundation a short time ago. It began its work largely as the result of a survey of the co-operative estate, the Progress Estate, in my constituency in Eltham, in June 1964. It set out to discover the number of single women living either alone or with dependent relatives. Out of 1,100 families contacted, there were 100 single women, 83 of whom were interviewed. Of these, 65 lived either with one or more relatives or with a friend, and 18 lived alone. Even among those who lived alone, 14 had at some time or other looked after one or more relatives. I think it right to say that the people who conducted the survey were surprised at the large number of women who had to look after relatives or had at some time or other had to do so and who were themselves single.
The National Council is here blazing the trail for the statutory authorities. Those of us with experience of the social services know how common it is for a private organisation to carry out social experiments and to find the facts, so that the statutory authorities can later on come in and help, in co-operation with the private charity or even on their own.
There was another survey in my constituency last year, in New Eltham. This was a general social survey, but one of the facts discovered in an area covering about 11,000 people was the very large number of people living isolated lives. Thirty-five per cent, of the sample covered in the survey experienced some degree of isolation. This is part of a pattern which confirms that the extended family is always the first line of defence in time of difficulty.
In the older working-class areas of this country we still have the extended family, but it is noteworthy that the extended family is disappearing. The older working-class areas are being broken up. Families are being broken up, as Peter Town send discovered in east London. It has been a familiar occurence in my home town of Liverpool for many years. In the London suburbs there is an enormous amount of isolation. It is all part and parcel of the problem of caring for


elderly people, and it underlines the responsibility which so many single women bear.
What are the facts of dependence? In 1965, the National Council identified about 13,000 people who received National Assistance because they had to stay at home to care for sick or elderly relatives. Most of those 13,000 were women, and most of them were single. There was a sample inquiry in November, 1964, which showed that over 10,000 of the 12,000 discovered by the sample were single women. Over 5,000 of them were between the ages of 50 and 60, 3,500 between 40 and 50, and 1,500 between 30 and 40. We see, therefore, that there are many elderly single women looking after even more elderly people. To my mind, this connotes a double social problem. Very often, the people who are doing the caring will themselves very soon need care. At that time, over 3,550 single women had been in receipt of National Assistance for five years or more because they stayed at home to look after a sick or elderly relative or relatives.
There is also the caring in human terms. There is the permanence of the responsibility. There is no let-up. There are no holidays, no eight-hour day, no five-day week. There is the sacrifice of friends, the sacrifice of independence, very often the sacrifice of marriage prospects. We talk about filial duty, but we should not batten on the filial duty of a few.
There is the length of time in years during which the care is undertaken. Some of the elderly relatives live until they are 80 or 90, and they may have to be cared for over a period of 40 or 50 years. Many of the relatives to be cared for are muddled in their minds, they are sick, they are incontinent, they are crotchety, they are difficult, they are impossible.

Dame Joan Vickers: They are human.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, they are human, and that is why they are cared for. But they are still difficult. I should hesitate to lecture other people on their filial duty in this sort of circumstance.
There are the financial burdens, too. There is the extra cost of fuel, the cost

of light, the cost of extra food, and all against a background of low incomes. The consequence is that the single woman doing the caring is very often not looking after herself properly. She is suffering from poor nutrition, which may well lead to bad health in her.
What needs to be done? I shall not today say anything about Income Tax allowances, although I regard this as a promising subject for discussion on another occasion. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for that. I shall speak about changes in the social security system. There is a constant review taking place, and in the last two years my right hon. Friend has brought forward many useful reforms. It is a continuing review, and we very much hope that in the next few months or in the next year or two we shall have more reforms, and in this field as well. When the Beveridge Report was being considered, we all thought that the new scheme would be comprehensive. We used the phrase "from the cradle to the grave" to cover all sorts of eventualities.
We now know that the Beveridge system was incomplete. There is a need for elderly, infirm or sick people to have more than a basic pension, because of their special health needs and their special social needs. There is also the need for single women to have an income of their own when they are asked to give up work in order to look after a dependent relative. They should not be dependent on the mother or father or any other relative. Very often, when this happens, they are still treated as children. It so often happens that there is a suspicion on the part of the parents that those caring for them are "spending my money". The single woman should have an income of her own. There is always the fear in the elderly that they will lose all their money. This is endemic in the state of growing old.
The National Council has suggested that a continuous attendance allowance should be granted to single women doing this sort of social service. I call it a social service because they are, very often, doing a job for the community. If they were not doing it, it would fall on the statutory authorities, and the burden of caring might then be far more expensive than it ever is when a single woman cares. We have suggested that


£5 might be a reasonable figure. Everyone knows, however, that when elderly people go into homes or into hospital it costs a great deal more than £5 a week to keep them. The single women in this case are taking on a job which otherwise the community would have to do.
We suggest that the continuous attendance allowance should be paid to the daughter and not to the relative who is being cared for. I know that under the industrial injuries scheme a continuous attendance allowance is paid to the person who is actually dependent. There is a difference here for the reason which I have stated. We would be paying the daughter for her care, especially if she gave up her job.
Another point in that connection concerns the insurance stamp. When a single woman gives up work, very often she no longer pays the stamp. This means that when she herself becomes of pensionable age she has sacrificed her insurance rights; because she is carrying out a devoted task, she is penalising herself later. This is certainly something which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider.
There are also the social needs on which I want to spend a few minutes. There is a need for special care to help women to keep relatives at home and not send them away to institutions. There is so often a deterioration when elderly relatives go into hospital or into a home, when they think that they are forgotten or have been cast aside. There is a physical and a mental deterioration. That is why we want to encourage people to keep their elderly relatives at home.
There is a need to relate this care by single women to the geriatric services in the local neighbourhood. There is a need to assist single women with home helps and the district nursing services. There is a need so often to provide an incontinent sheet service to help the single woman with the burden of laundry. Then there is the need to give the single woman a little time off now and again. In Eltham this was provided by the National Council when it organised a holiday for many of these dependent relatives so that the single women could get a holiday themselves.
There is a need for the housing authorities to provide sheltered housing schemes. I am aware that this is not the

responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, but it will be seen, if the House looks at the Motion, that not only do we expect my right hon. Friend to accept her responsibilities but we also urge other welfare services outside to consider what responsibilities they have in this field. Local housing authorities can assist by providing schemes for sheltered housing for single women—for example, two-bedroom flats with, perhaps, a resident caretaker or somebody near at hand who can go in when the single woman is away at work.
Some people might think that this is not a very large problem—what are 13,000 people when viewed against some of the other problems—but I suggest that a great many other people who are doing this sort of work in our society have so far not been discovered. It may be that there is a need for somebody—I am not sure who—to carry out some sort of inquiry to find out just how big is the nature of this problem. I said earlier that these women are very often forgotten. I am very glad to think that this House today is not forgetting them.

4.15 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), not only on being so lucky in the Ballot but on his excellent choice of subject and the very sympathetic way in which he put forward his Motion. I should also like to thank the Minister for being present this afternoon, because I know that she has experience of caring for people and therefore she is particularly understanding towards this subject.
We might say that this is pioneer work which has been going on for only a comparatively short time. I should like to pay tribute to the Rev. Mary Webster, who founded the organisation which was started in the hon. Member's constituency but which has now spread throughout the country and now includes, I am glad to say, a branch in my constituency. If the Minister had had the opportunity, which some of us had last week, to attend the annual general meeting of the organisation in the Grand Committee Room, she would have been gratified to find that that room was more than filled with


people who really are worried about this subject and are interested in the problem.
The approach by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West was, I thought, just the right way to get sympathy and to highlight the problem. He said that too little was known about the subject and that only 13,000 people are known to be affected. This debate today does highlight the problem and will bring it to the attention of many more people. As the Minister is always trying to find those who are in need, I hope that as a result of this debate those in need in this category will now know that such an organisation exists to help them.
A reason why the Minister should welcome this debate is that so often when Motions are presented they call for the expenditure of further money, whereas the Motion this afternoon could represent a real saving. As the right hon. Lady knows, the cost of local authority homes and sending people to hospital is infinitely more than that of keeping people in their own homes, which has the added advantage of helping to maintain family life. Although we may not have the same splendid family support that we used to have, we in this country still value family life.
Chaucer said:
What is bettre than wisdom? Womman. And what is bettre than a good womman? No-thing.
Thackeray said:
When I say that I know women, I mean I know that I don't know them. Every single woman I ever knew is a puzzle to me, as, I have no doubt, she is to herself.
We understand why many women are single—not only because of the First World War, but because many of them, from the very early age of 16 or even younger, have decided to devote themselves to a single relative, perhaps to help in some way their widowed mother or sometimes to keep house for their father.
Washington Irving, who had an understanding of women, said that
A woman's whole existence is a history of the affections.
This debate today shows a real history of affection among these many women who care for their elderly loved ones.
This whole situation, however, is likely to be only a passing problem, lasting,

perhaps, only another 25 years or so, because the single woman is a dying race. The Registrar-General has said that by 1993 there will be 1,700,000 more men than women of working age. We shall not, therefore, have the women to undertake this work in the more distant future. I should have thought that it was advantageous now to spend any money we could in helping such people look after their relatives rather than building special accommodation.
I have received a letter from a constituent of mine which sets out some of the problems and indicates how little they are realised and what little help can be obtained from the Welfare State. Part of that letter reads:
My mother is senile, immobile, deaf, almost blind, and extremely incontinent. My dear father is very ill indeed with heart trouble, high blood pressure, hardening arteries, and complete physical exhaustion. The doctor has been to see him today and said he is 'a very sick man', and that ' it won't be long'. He admits that he is a hospital case, but says he cannot take him in because he ' hasn't got a bed'. My dear father collapsed a week ago, and nobody has even been sent to wash him yet. He is a very heavy man ",
and she goes on to say that she cannot move him herself because she is incapacitated.
That woman gave up a good job in London and took a job at £5 less a week in order to be near her aged parents and to look after them. Until the organisation which I have mentioned was started, she had no idea that she could get any sort of home help. I am glad to say that I have been able to be of some assistance, and, thanks to this organisation, she now has home help. She had been told that because she was a daughter residing at home, and as she lived in a separate flat, she was not eligible. I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would contact her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and ask him to send a circular to local authorities to make sure that they see that everyone knows of the facilities which are available, because there is often considerable discrimination against single women.
I wish to support what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said about a constant care allowance. It is already given to other categories of the industrially disabled, and I should have thought that it was quite a reasonable


request. It is not given at the moment, and it would be of tremendous help.
The society to which I have referred has also had a gift from a charity to undertake further research, which means that the Ministry will not have to undertake the work to the extent which it might have had to do. When such an organisation tries to undertake research itself, not only does it show the great efforts which it wishes to make and the fact that it is recognised by a charity that such work is necessary, but it also shows that there are still independent people who do not rely on the Welfare State to start such services.
There is also the problem that older people themselves are living longer. They need more nourishment and particularly more heating. I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady could say how far her officers have complete freedom to judge for themselves how much extra money they can give to keep such people with comfort in their own homes. I am thinking particularly of two elderly people who, because of their physical disabilities, are forced to live in two different rooms. They both need heating and lighting. Can the right hon. Lady ensure that each one is dealt with as a separate individual and given adequate heating for their individual needs and not necessarily for their combined needs, as is so often done at present?
I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not mention Income Tax. I gather, therefore, that it would not be in order for me to refer to it. However, there is the question of a housekeeper's allowance, particularly in the case of a non-resident housekeeper, because there is not always sufficient room for a resident housekeeper in certain homes.
We are particularly anxious that home helps should be allowed to be paid for, as and when they can be found, and paid for to allow individual single women to go away for holidays. It was stressed at the meeting the other day that very often the elderly people themselves do not want to go away because they have become used to their surroundings, but it is essential that the individuals looking after them should have the chance of a holiday of some kind. Therefore if it were possible, either through local councils, the Guilds of Social Services or the Red Cross, for arrangements to be made for

someone to go into such a family for, say, a fortnight every year, this would be a tremendous advantage. At present, that is being done for the disabled in quite large measure. In the Plymouth area we have a country home for the disabled where they can go while those who care for them get a rest. We should like to see a similar organisation for single women.
In supporting the hon. Member for Woolwich, West in the very adequate speech which he made, I would say that the evidence has been forthcoming in just over one year of pioneer work, and it is not just a localised problem in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, but the work has spread throughout the country, as was seen at the recent annual general meeting.
The general need has been found, and if we are to give some support to the aims of this body, the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, I hope that action will be taken quickly, because it is a need which may gradually die out. It may be that in future men and women will be looking after the elderly, because there will not be the single women available to do this job.
If the right hon. Lady will see that additional allowances can be granted to make life easier for the people whom we are discussing she will do a really great service for the community.

4.26 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I welcome this Motion dealing with the plight of a certain section of women in the community, first of all, because it was moved by a man. In that way my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is a rare and unique type of man to involve himself in the isolated problems of single women.
As we are endeavouring to point out in this debate, this is a much more general problem than is realised by most hon. Members. There cannot be many hon. Members who have not had correspondence from single women with dependent relatives seeking to find out what they can possibly do about their situation, and every hon. Member who goes on house-to-house canvassing is bound to come across these cases in his visits.
It is only recently that some sort of body has been created to represent the


views of these neglected women. It is a new body, but it is one which is rapidly growing. The fact that it has been so successful in its first few months indicates the real need that there was for such an organisation.
I was glad to note that my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening sentences the basic economic discrimination against women in the fact that they are not paid the rate for the job. Only 10 per cent, of women working today receive equal pay with men for doing the same work. Single women with dependent relatives are among the 90 per cent, of women who are discriminated against, when they have the same financial commitments as a married man. But how often does one hear a presumably intelligent man saying, "Surely single women do not have dependants"? That is the stock excuse for not giving women equal pay. We hope to explode this myth in today's debate.
It is always assumed that women are kept by their husbands or, if they are not married, are independent career women with only themselves to think about. Completely overlooked are widows with young children, unmarried mothers and single women with dependants. These women are working at a cut price and are being exploited at their work.
There is a false picture of a career woman as someone who is independent and carefree, often earning a large professional salary and with only herself on which to spend it. The fact is that the number of women earning over £1,000 a year is only 5·1 per cent, of those making an Income Tax return. The average net income for women is between £200 and £550 a year. This is simply not enough on which to support dependent relatives. I would urge the Government, through my right hon. Friend, yet again to introduce urgently legislation granting equal pay for women, because this is not a privilege but a right. Even a single measure such as has been mentioned, extending the housekeeping allowance for women, which now includes widows and divorcees, would go a long way toward relieving the burden on these women.
There should never be any question of their having to rely on charity for support. As the terms of the Motion clearly state, these women are

… performing a service which otherwise would have to be undertaken by social security and public welfare services …
The Government have a clear responsibility towards them. Their social problems are just as innumerable and insuperable as are their financial ones. We have to remember that "dependent relatives does not necessarily always mean parents. It could mean physically or mentally sick or handicapped brothers or sisters.
In every case it is so often an unmarried daughter upon whose shoulders the burden rests. As a practising doctor I have met horrifying cases where it is the daughter who is left to carry the burden while a married son, with his family, is living only in the next town. Usually, he never comes to visit his parents or brother or sister who are dependent on the daughter, though he might come at Christmas time. It is very interesting that if there is a death in the house a whole shoal of relatives suddenly appear from all corners of Britain and even the world, people from whom one has not heard for months and years, and who have never offered to help.
These people justify their behaviour by saying, "Oh, the daughter is best suited to take care of the parents, or brother or sister. After all, she has no ties. She has no qualifications to do any particular job of work. What else is there for her to do? How will she spend her time?" Often an aged parent rationalises in this way and says, "Well, I am giving my daughter a home", and feels no guilt that he or she is keeping the daughter housebound. Parents selfishly exploit their unmarried daughter, often without realising it. Very often the daughter is treated like a child for the whole of her adult life. She becomes submissive and resigned to her fate, and reaches the stage when she never expects to have a full life.
There are thousands of these women all over the country. As has been pointed out, to deal with a demanding, temperamental or obsessional person, as many of us will become when we get old, is an even greater burden than dealing with somebody of ordinary middle age or dealing with a young person. We do not know how many of these women there are. A doctor sees only the women who are looking after sick relatives. He


does not see the ones who are looking after fit elderly relatives. The National Assistance Board sees only those in grave financial difficulties. The problem very often is being fought out behind closed doors, because a single woman has her pride which prevents her from seeking help. She feels that she is morally obliged to do what she is doing.
We know that 10 per cent, of women over the age of 40 are single, that 10 per cent, of women in Britain are unmarried. But these are only estimates, and the Government have a duty to obtain statistics un this matter. The problem will increase and not decrease. We shall all live far longer than did our parents or our grandparents. Women live longer than men, but I will not go into the reasons for that. Medical authorities are discovering ways of keeping us alive longer. The tragic thing is that final illnesses, instead of lasting weeks, are now lasting months or years due to the new drugs that are being discovered. It has been shown that women have a greater tendency to chronic ill-health than men. Old men are either very well or very ill. Women, when they are old, very often seem to stagger on as chronic invalids.
There is the increasing cost of domestic help. The wife of any hon. Member who has tried to obtain domestic help, resident or daily, knows that it is a battle. Domestic help is not something that one can find automatically, and one has to pay far more for this valuable form of labour.
The Ministry of Health will not help the situation. In my constituency of Halifax the Minister told us that he could see no immediate prospect of a large increase in the number of geriatric beds to cope with the increase in the elderly populations. He wants to encourage old people to be cared for at home rather than in hospital. That is a very worthy aim, but we know that there is a chronic shortage of home help, of district nurses, and, particularly in Halifax, of family doctors.
The burden will fall on these people and on single women, who will be asked to nurse their relatives at home. As any doctor knows, the chances of getting a sick elderly patient admitted permanently to a geriatric bed or into an old people's home is extremely difficult if there is, living with that person, a daughter who

is capable of caring for the patient. The immediate priority, quite naturally, is for old people who live alone. It is always assumed that somehow the daughter will cope.
We have a picture of these women who during the day are wage-earners and in the early morning and the evening fulfil the multiple rôles of unpaid nurse, domestic help, and companion, often with interrupted sleep at night. This leads to mental stress and anxiety and often to a breakdown of their own physical health. They do not meet people of their own age. They are pursued by a fear that they will not be able to keep up their strength to cope with their job, and at the same time they wonder what will become of them when they too grow old.
This type of woman often faces a lonely future. Who will care for her? With whom will she be able to live? What money will she be able to draw on in her turn? Her feeling of filial duty keeps her at her job, and until the organisation which has been mentioned was set up she did not expect help and never asked for any. It is for us, as Members of Parliament, to ask on her behalf.
One thing which can perhaps be done is to set up some sort of organisation to allow these single women more free time and possibly the prospect of a holiday. I knew one woman who had not had a holiday for 15 years. The reasons given were varied—that the dependent relative did not wish to be left, lack of money, anxiety on her part about leaving the relative, or inability to find anyone to look after the relative.
Perhaps it will be possible to arrange holiday homes for the relatives to stay at together with their daughters, or a relief service, or even a sitting-in service rather akin to a baby-sitting service. After all, many of these people are in their second childhood. We should provide something to make it possible for the daughter of the house to go out for the evening or to take a holiday.
I think that we have shown that this problem is a Government responsibility, both financially and socially. It involves the Ministry of Social Security, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They cannot work in isolation. I hope that they


will take the example set to them by my political neighbour the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and co-ordinator of the social services, took this problem very much to heart and was extremely sympathetic. Above all, co-ordination between the Ministries involved is needed to deal with the problems which we have outlined.

4.41 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on having put this Motion on the Order Paper. I congratulate him, too, on the many years of hard work which he has put into supporting the Rev. Mary Webster and her gallant body of voluntary workers in trying to bring to the notice of the House of Commons, the appropriate Ministers, and the country, the issues which he has so ably covered in his Motion.
Perhaps I might, with respect, say a few words to the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), whose very sympathetic and knowledgeable speech I enjoyed very much. She spoke as though this association for single women with dependants had just been created. The hon. Lady is wrong about that, because this association which was started by the Rev. Mary Webster, certainly five years ago, is not a new concept or a new organisation.
The problem is that a woman of the Rev. Mary Webster's capacity, knowledge and human sympathy has taken a o very long time to build up a general interest in the problems which she has been bringing forward, and I should like, in my opening remarks—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, who has so ardently and consistently supported her would agree with me—to say that it was the Rev. Mary Webster who saw the problem in its entirety and started in Woolwich and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, together with a remarkable band of voluntary workers, to create this organisation with a view to doing what could be done—as has been pointed out by the three hon. Members who preceded me—to find a way of helping the single women who undertake the very heavy and

arduous work of looking after their relatives.
I am very proud to say that I interested myself in this organisation from the very beginning, partly because I went to a meeting which was arranged and organised by the Royal College of Nursing, and heard the Rev. Mary Webster putting the case. Of course, she was putting the case to interest the nursing profession in the problem which we are discussing. I then got in touch with her. I heard of the remarkable help which was being given by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, and from the beginning I have watched the growth of what has been done. I hope that one day the initial work and inspiration of the Rev. Mary Webster will be suitably acknowledged.
I am very glad to see the right hon. Lady the Minister here, because I agree that she will take a tremendous interest in this whole problem because of her knowledge of it. I was very sorry indeed that I could not accompany the deputation from the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants which the right hon. Lady graciously received one day last week, but I agree with everything that has been said, with all the points of view which have been put forward, with all the different angles which have been brought to light, and with what has been said about all the different Ministries which can become involved. But I am bound to say to the right hon. Lady—and I do not think that she will disagree with me—that she has to fight the battle with the Treasury, because although it is true that vast expenditure is not involved in the Motion, in certain directions the right hon. Lady, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will all be involved.
I am tremendously proud that I took the first deputation which was organised through this very important voluntary organisation to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, at that time, happened to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Conservative Party, which I am always honoured to serve. I tried to be very realistic. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has great charm, listened with tremendous interest to all that was said by the Rev. Mary Webster


and those who were supporting her on the deputation. When he had listened to everything, he said—and I think that this almost sets the seal on what has been said this afternoon—" All these issues which have been raised are issues which I have never had put to me before".
I am not in the least surprised that my right hon. Friend had not heard about this before, because when I try to sum up the machinery of government I realise only too well—and I say this with great regret—that the kind of problems which are being discussed here this afternoon are always at the bottom of the priorities of any Government Department, except the Government Department over which the right hon. Lady presides. Certainly, when the Minister of Health produces what he requires at Cabinet level, when the Minister of Housing and Local Government produces what he requires, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is being pressed by various Ministers, this matter is at the bottom of the list. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like his Conservative predecessor, has never had to face these problems, because until the Rev. Mary Webster started her campaign there was not a co-ordinating body to argue with the Chancellor.
This is a great weakness of government. It was a great weakness when my party was in power and it is a great weakness now. I suspect that in spite of the advocacy which the right hon. Lady will put forward this problem will find very few supporters when it comes to arguing about money at Cabinet level. It is, therefore, tremendously important that we should debate the matter now. It is slightly more difficult for a Government—whatever their political complexion—to dismiss the problems involved in a Motion once it has reached the stage of discussion on the Floor of the House and the Ministers concerned are faced with the problem of what they are going to do.
Sometimes the question of departmental responsibility almost drives me mad. I agree with the hon. Member for Halifax that the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was 100 per cent, behind the suggestion being put forward today. Various deputations appeared before him. but he no longer has a position of responsibility, and I doubt whether the new

Minister has the same interest in this matter. His interests have been widened, and he has other responsibilities, whereas the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was able to concentrate on these problems. I am sick of the repeated answers given by the Government Front Bench about the everlasting review of the situation.
We should not have to go on reviewing these matters when the ordinary backbencher knows that there is no need to do so. The issues that require solving are there to be solved. We do not need any more reviews. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not be forced into saying that this matter is under close and continuous review. We almost need a new dictionary to discover what the word "continuous" means in relation to Parliamentary procedure.
As the right hon. Lady knows, the allocation of houses and the building of homes to accommodate families is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The housing shortage continues, in spite of the tremendous efforts made by all Governments. Sometimes, when a single woman is responsible merely for a mother or sister, and that single woman is working to support her relative, a local authority nevertheless will not allocate a house with two bedrooms. In the case of the single woman who is doing all she can to help her dependent relative by working, the Minister of housing should see that local authorities are given more guidance.
Ministers should be more emphatic, and should see that elderly relatives are not required to share a bedroom with a single woman who are caring for them. I want to see a common policy adopted throughout the country, so that when people reach a certain age and are being maintained or looked after by single daughters, local authorities will provide them with rooms of their own.
As for home helps, much depends on how many can be recruited. There is a great difference between areas. Some areas have lots of home helps to carry out the necessary work, while others have very few. We have never been told the make-up of the various areas. This problem requires careful consideration.
I remember a single woman living in my constituency whose mother, by all accounts, should have gone to a mental


home. Her daughter was determined never to let her mother go there—and we can all admire such a woman. The daughter had a very good and reasonably highly-paid job, and she had also managed to accumulate a lot of savings over the years. As soon as she gave up her job to devote her life to her mother she had to draw on her savings to keep herself up to date in her stamped contributions, so as to be eligible for pension.
One problem in social security concerns people who do not pay stamps because their incomes are too low. Many single women come into that category, and they present a great problem, in terms of making arrangements for their future lives.
These are the problems which need examining. I realise the difficulty. In a large, overall scheme, there is little room for exceptions. This is a problem of a section of the community. In terms of overall departmental responsibility, it is difficult to find room for exceptions. This is what the Motion is about. We are trying to find how, in justice and humanity, we can find a place for those who do not conveniently fall into the categories which have already been laid down by Acts of Parliament.
Taxation reliefs can be given and money found for constant attendance allowances, which is an important matter, but perhaps one on which we must approach the Chancellor. However, during all the years that I have been in the House of Commons and have taken part in debates on various forms of a new Clause—when we can persuade Mr. Speaker to call it—to deal not only with the special taxation reliefs for widowers and widows, but also for single women and bachelors with responsibilities which they try to meet, the argument against it has always been on the basis of money expenditure.
But—this ought to appeal to the right hon. Lady—it does not matter how much money a widow or widower may have, he or she can still get taxation relief for a resident housekeeper. We have never been able to persuade any Government—I can hit both parties on the head—that this is not justice. I remember—

Mr. J. T. Price: I will be very happy to reinforce what the hon.

Lady is saying, because I have, a number of times, made this same plea to Governments of both parties, who have always had a blind spot on it. Therefore, I support what she says about taxation reliefs.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful for that. I hope that, as a result at least of this debate, this kind of justice in our taxation system will be introduced in the Finance Bill which follows the Budget on 11th April.
I remember also talking to a Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Coalition Government—Sir John Anderson, who became Lord Waverley. His explanation was that, at some time, this provision for widowers and widows had somehow slipped into a Finance Bill without anyone knowing and that, therefore, the Government would not extend it because it ought never to have been there.
That, of course, is no argument. I should like the right hon. Lady to give me an assurance—if she can do so without transgressing on another Department's responsibility—that, when the next Finance Bill comes forward, she will have an argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, using all her charm, to persuade him to put at least this injustice right.
I was delighted that the hon. Member for Halifax made the point that this Motion was introduced by a man. Men are very susceptible if one can get at them. The trouble is, one never can. We can see an example of that today when there are so few Members here; they rush out because they are terrified of being involved in something which they do not understand. I therefore hope that there will be a real result from the Motion, which I wholeheartedly support, for the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, organised by the Rev. Mary Webster with support of all parties and all types. This is a growing need in the country today.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) is wrong in her view that, because we are males, we take no interest in a subject of this kind. This is a quite unfounded allegation. I have been interested in this for many years—

Dr. Summerskill: I pointed out that males who do take an interest are unique and rare; my hon. Friend falls into that category.

Mr. Wilkins: That is the first time that I have been called unique or rare, but I am delighted to hear it from my hon. Friend.
I want to state a further case of even greater hardship than either of the instances cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), to whose speech I listened with such interest and attention that I was reluctant to intervene at that time. He referred constantly to single women, as have almost all hon. Members except the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
I speak from personal experience of a case which is in my hands at the moment and with which I am immediately concerned. This type of case can be even harder than anything mentioned this afternoon.
This prompts me to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that, if she had been in the House longer, she would have known that we used to badger my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on every Budget about this, because we thought that something could be done in the Budget about it. Perhaps we may have a chance in the discussions on this year's Finance Bill.
The case I wish to describe is of a married daughter of aged parents who has been left a widow with a house on which the mortgage is almost, but not quite, completed. There is therefore both the attraction and the necessity for her, as a widow, to try to retain this property and liquidate the mortgage. Her aged parents, who are both over 80, with one unfortunately becoming senile and "mental" though not "mental" enough to be put in an institution, were physically incapable of looking after themselves and the doctor said that they should live with their daughter. She is ready to have them and indeed now has them in her own house.
However, this, of course, involves her in tremendous financial difficulty, because a part of her aged parents' pension must be used to maintain, at least for the time being, the property from

which they moved. They cannot just dispose of a property out of hand. It is not known what will happen or whether they will recover and be able to go back. At the same time, the daughter wants to maintain her own house.
The hardship arises because she is a widow of over 50 and does evening work to help meet her expenses. But she can no longer do this and the time is bound to come when this employment will cease. I do not know what the answer to this is. I simply pose it as one of those problem cases which one might ask to be considered to see whether any help can possibly be given. If help cannot be given by the Ministry to a person in this situation, I suggest that my right hon. Friend ought to "get at" the Treasury to see what they can do, either by way of taxation relief or by some other means, so that these people might at least have some financial help towards doing an extremely difficult job.

5.9 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), I am not in the least surprised at the warm concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) for single women and their relatives. I know him to be—if I might use a slightly un-Parliamentary term—an absolute lamb. He is just the sort of hon. Member who would be concerned for this section of the community.
If I feel at all inhibited in discussing the Motion, it is because we should be stressing the positive side of the problem. The Welfare State throws a wide net over our people. However, the net has a wide mesh and many people fall through it. The woman who looks after a sick relative or a relative whose health is deteriorating has a great many problems to face. She receives the assistance of the district nurse, but the most sympathetic district nurse, while being able to deal with the medical care of the patient, cannot give assistance which should be given by the taxation authorities. A woman who is looking after an incapacitated relative is really often doing two full-time jobs at once. This aspect of the problem should be concerning us. In other words, we should be anxious to keep single women in jobs because we


should be concerned about what happens to them when the relatives for whom they are caring die.
Under the Welfare State an extraordinarily large sum is paid out for people in geriatric units who would be happier in their own homes if they received domiciliary help. We do not concern ourselves sufficiently with the single woman who gives up her job to look after her parents and finds, after many years of taking care of them, that she has no work, no immediate family and many problems. This aspect should be concerning us as much as the problem of looking after the patient.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give due consideration to this point because if this matter were handled properly the State would be saved a great deal of money. Ever-increasing sums are paid under the National Health Service for the care of geriatric patients. We should be sympathetic to the idea of giving considerable grants to enable single women to keep their jobs, to be able to pay people to do the domestic work involved —there should be laundry units, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West pointed out—and so that they can carry on with their practical work.
The sort of women about whom I am concerned are often those with a highly developed sense of duty and, therefore, are probably doing important jobs like nursing and teaching. I hope that, in considering the terms of the Motion, my right hon. Friend will accept that there are too many arbitrary lines already drawn in the welfare services. We already say that the National Health Service requires a certain amount of money and that the local authority welfare services should be given a certain amount in grant, but there is not sufficient flexibility in the way in which this money is paid from one service to another. There is still too little co-ordination between the local authority and the Ministerial services.
I absolve the Minister from having any unfeeling attitude towards this issue because hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that she is one of the most sympathetic and considerate Ministers we have. I am sure that she accepts that none of us is getting any younger. Indeed, I am looking forward to being an absolutely foul mother-in-law

three times over, and, in that respect, perhaps I should declare an interest in this matter. When considering the single woman, we should remember her need to stay at work. We need as many women doctors, teachers and nurses as we can get. The community loses if a woman possessing one of these skills is allowed to give up her job to enable her to give the domestic help needed to maintain her parents.
I urge my right hon. Friend to realise that we are discussing a positive Motion. I appreciate that she may not be able to give categorical assurances today. Nevertheless, we hope that, when she is considering the matter, she will remember that, apart from a definite saving of money to be made by enabling single women to continue at work—more than that, the saving in people's happiness is a side of the Welfare State which should be receiving our concern today.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: So many rude things are said about Privy Councillors intervening in debates that I thought I would delay trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, until it appeared that most, if not all, of the hon. Members who wished to speak had done so. I hope that, by speaking now, I will not be thought to be prolonging the debate unduly, but after two-and-a-quarter years of enforced silence in this House on questions on which I have felt deeply, I wish to take what opportunities occur in future of speaking my mind on them.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Houghton: I hope that, in doing so, I shall not embarrass my right hon. Friend, for whose capacity, zeal and combative qualities I have great admiration. The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) need have no fear on one count: so long as my right hon. Friend is there, these matters of social security and the social services will not be neglected.
The National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants must be feeling proud of its sponsors this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who so ably moved the Motion, is one of them. My special hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), is also one of


them, and the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth is another of them. Any voluntary organisation with such a list of distinguished sponsors which can get three of them speaking in one debate is doing very well indeed. I cannot claim to be a sponsor of the National Council, but I admit that I was asked to be one and I believe that I made a speech when it was inaugurated in its present form.
Many of us who have been going into the Ballot year after year without having drawn a place of any kind must feel envious of our hon. Friends—more envious still of hon. Gentlemen opposite —when they draw first place. We ask ourselves what sort of Motion we would move if this fortune came to us. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West that when this rare opportunity—an opportunity which comes once, if at all, in a Parliamentary lifetime—

Mr. Hamling: Three times.

Mr. Houghton: Even if my hon. Friend had come out lucky in the Ballot 33 times, he is to be congratulated on having chosen this subject for his Motion.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North-West) rose—

Mr. Houghton: If the hon. Gentleman intervenes, it will be that much longer before his Motion comes on. He had better sit quiet and wait his turn, which will come before 7 o'clock if he behaves himself. If he intervenes in my speech he will probably rise at about three minutes to 7 o'clock, and I give him that warning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I come from neighbouring constituencies. We rarely speak in the same debate, but when we do we set a slight problem for our esteemed newspaper, the Halifax Courier,as to which of us should be reported the most and what it is we have said that will strike the eye of its readers. We both share in our constituencies a proportion of old people much above the national average, where the problem mentioned in the Motion is, and has been, conspicuous for many years.
It was not accidental that the Spinsters' Association, which some of us remember, led by the late Miss Florence White, came from a textile area. In that area single

women had opportunities for employment denied to single women in many other parts of the country and who, therefore, did not throw themselves away on the first men who asked them to marry them. Many of these women have found that they have had to devote a great deal of their lives to looking after elderly relatives. It is for this reason that I take part in this debate.
The National Council is a pressure group, and I believe in pressure groups. Although they necessarily take a narrow view of the wider problem, they concentrate attention on a feature of our social services and social need which might otherwise receive less than due regard. It is for the rest of us to put the whole thing in proper perspective and to look at the interests of particular groups in the wider context. I want to put this debate in the wider context, because the circumstances facing single women looking after dependants are a small part of the problems of women generally in social life and in the social services.
My right hon. Friend has heard me say many times before what I am about to say, and I shall therefore excuse her if she goes out for a cup of tea. Social security is mostly about women—all sorts and conditions of women; single women, married women, separated, deserted or divorced wives, unmarried mothers. The social provisions and social problems that will arise in the future are enormous. Of the present 6½ million retirement pensioners, two-thirds are women. No fewer than 600,000 widow pensioners and those on allowances are under the age of 60. Out of a total of 7½ million people on long-term benefits, 5¼ million are women. Another surprising fact is that of the elderly in residential accommodation—Part III accommodation—nearly two-thirds are women. On the books of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, we find 120,000 women—separated wives, single and other women with illegitimate children, divorced women—costing over £40 million a year in social benefits. All women are vulnerable in nearly every form of society. The struggle for emancipation and equality is by no means won, not even in Britain. It surprises me in this articulate age that women will put up with so much. If only the women's organisations were today as vocal about the defects in the social services, in the


status, legal and social, of women, as they were years ago on the fundamental rights of women, we should get some of these things remedied far more quickly. There is more social insecurity amongst women than in any other section of the community.
Our so-called Welfare State was built on pre-war thinking and experience, and reflected the conditions of 1939 and earlier. Beveridge could not foresee that one-third of the nation's work force would be women, and that nearly half of those women would be married women. In the days past of larger families and fewer opportunities for the employment of women there was always someone who could stay at home to look after the aged parent, the frail mother. It was usually the last to remain at home who got caught in this filial obligation, and in many cases they remained single for the rest of their lives.
The boundaries of fundamental thinking about social security stopped short in the past at wives, mothers and widows. We see this in the structure of the social security scheme, which puts many millions of women at risk because their social security as of right depends on the contributions of their husbands. I frequently say that social security for married women in this country depends on a faithful husband or the National Assistance Board, and in many, many cases that is almost literally true.
One can pretty well say that perhaps only the married woman is given full status in social and legal life in Britain —and that is lacking in many respects. Widowhood is a respectable condition. Separation, divorce or desertion is not a respectable condition. Nor is a spinster in a really respectable condition—at least she does not have full status. I know that I speak in the presence of hon. Ladies, but I also know that they do not mind plain speaking—they probably say the same thing themselves on the platform when urging what I stand for on the question of the full freedom of women and their proper place in society.
Single women, when householders, are taxed as if they were teenaged girls paying an inadequate sum for board and lodging and spending a good deal of money on themselves. If they give up their jobs to nurse a sick parent and fail

to pay National Insurance they will be in trouble, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West has said. If there is a gap in their contributions, there will be a reduction in their own retirement pensions when the time comes. Many single women are in and out of insurance because of emergency calls to act as home help or day and night nurse to some bedridden relative.
It has been said that brothers and married sisters are rarely called on to act in long emergencies like this; it is from the woman who is supposed to have no ties, who can give something up and go home at once, that an undue amount of self-sacrifice and devotion is expected. It is those women on whose behalf we speak today. They may work much harder in the home than ever they did in the office or factory, but they get nothing for it. They are treated as non-persons, as non-employed persons, and unless they pay their contributions as non-employed persons their own social security is at risk.
Nothing has been said of whether the term "single woman and her dependant" includes a single woman with a child, but we must not ignore this aspect. The dependants of a single woman are not always elderly and frail parents. Unhappily, 70,000 illegitimate children are born each year. The single woman who has a child will not experience or hear much about the happiness and joys of motherhood. She may be grateful to the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child and to the adoption societies—they do splendid work—but it can be said, without being too cynical, that the wages of sin may not be death but they will not be enough to live on.
We should not ignore this side of the problem in looking at the question of the single woman and her dependants. We must not be too prim about this. Elderly parents and sick relatives arouse our emotions, but not always illegitimate children. Yet this is part of the social security problem of women. We neglect the unmarried woman and her child, but in many cases that child is as much or more a dependant than is the elderly relative.
But, getting back to those mentioned in the Motion, we must all recognise that single women over 40 are largely the


casualties of two wars. Their future husbands were killed or died of wounds or disease, and we hope that that will never happen again. But there are hundreds of thousands of older women who are as much war disabled as many men on war pensions. Because they remained unmarried they were still at home when parents became aged or frail. In many cases, these women had to turn down opportunities for marriage because they felt that devotion to their parents came first.
Happily, as the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned, this is likely to be a diminishing problem. Not many women of the younger generation will have to endure the lonely and dull life of many spinsters of today and yesterday. It is not generally understood how significant it is that this the first generation of young men in this century who have not been sent to war. This is responsible for much manifestation of the social disturbance that we are grappling with and trying to understand. If we can keep the peace, we can expect the number of unmarried women to fall.
But one or two little warnings should be given. First, the teenage girls should be warned that the death rate of young men in the early twenties is nearly 2½ times that of girls. That is the toll of the motorbike, of pot-holing, of mountaineering and other causes of violent death. Even in the thirties and early forties, when men tend to behave more responsibly, the death rate among men is more than 1⅓ times higher than for women. In the fifties, the death rate for men rises to more than twice that of women. That is when thrombosis and strokes mow down overworked, over-fed, and under-exercised men of late middle age.
There is another factor which already tends to reduce the size of the problem in future—that is the relationship between males and females in the young population. Since men tend to marry women who are, on average, two and a half years younger than themselves, it follows that the young men born in 1947, which was a peak birth year, will be looking for girls born between 1949 and 1951. The chances of these girls getting married will be greater.
Looking at the problem of provision for the single woman and her dependents,

there are, as my right hon. Friend will no doubt mention, some important questions both of equity and of administration. That is why I am not going to be dogmatic about what should be done or what can be done within the context of a reformed social security scheme. On the welfare side of this matter, the possibility of imprisoned women getting released for holidays and rest must still largely be a matter for the welfare services. I have great hopes that, when the Seebohm Committee reports later this year, an indication will be given to the Government and this House as to how the personal welfare services at local authority level can be improved and coordinated and made more effective and more efficient.
Of course, one must not overlook the fact that some men also give up work to look after sick wives and children. We must not forget them. Further, single women are not the only ones who do this The National Assistance Board said, in reporting some figures that I saw, that a proportion of the women described as single are separated or divorced and, of course, widows can be called upon to undertake this task as well. We thus have a range of claimants for some consideration when they are called upon to do this work.
Another thing we find is that a very large proportion of children in care at any time have been taken in care temporarily because of difficulties at home, perhaps sparing the father the need to give up his job because his wife is ill and there is no one to care for the children. This is another aspect of social provision. It should not always be necessary, and probably is not always desirable, that people should be dragged away from their normal jobs to go home and look after sick and aged people for whose care and treatment they may have no special qualifications. We have to keep that in mind.
Finally, there is the problem of the test of qualification. This is the most difficult part. In benefits as of right, entitlement has to be very carefully and clearly defined because it is the Act of Parliament which will bestow entitlement. Discretion does not arise. One has to be precise and the more one has to be precise the more difficult definition becomes. But, if this is to be left to the


discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, then there is greater flexibility. The officers can look at the whole circumstances of the case and not be hidebound by regulations, still less by Act of Parliament.
I still dream the dream that it will be possible to introduce into the structure of our social services a guaranteed income scheme which will provide a universal and acceptable means test which will take care of a large range of social needs which, at the present time, are sometimes provided for unnecessarily by benefits as of right and inadequately by benefits by need and discretion.
This, I believe, is going to be the fundamental question of the development of our social security scheme in future. We see it referred to time and again and only this weekend, in the Observer,there was a further reference to it. This, I believe, is the direction in which we have to go, otherwise we shall have this mounting cost of indiscriminately distributed benefits, for which full contributions have not been paid and never will be paid. If we could only find the means of adjusting benefits more acceptably to circumstances, we could get very much nearer to equitable and adequate provision in a great variety of cases.
This is the end of what I want to say on this subject and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to stray a little widely of a Motion rather narrowly drawn. I have already made my apology and given my explanation but I hope that I have said something which may cause the House to think of some of the problems that were engaging my mind and the minds of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security and other colleagues in the Government in the last two years.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) would have excited our gratitude if only for the speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) which the hon. Member stimulated by this debate. We were all delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman, back in his place on the back benches, speaking with great enthusiasm. I do not propose to travel quite so widely, but I should like

to say how much I agreed with his concluding remarks.
In what the right hon. Gentleman said there was room for a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House and I can only hope that as the months and years go by the ideas which he has dropped into the Government machine, and the iconoclasm and energy which he has shown this afternoon, will be reflected in Government action. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, too, will wish that.
We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West for the specific matters which he has raised. I am sure that he is right in thinking that in our present circumstances there are what he called special categories of need and what the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) called holes in the net which should properly excite our attention. Like every hon. Member, I am pleased to note that so many of those special categories have special defenders among whom I would certainly include the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants.
I have long believed that in our National Insurance system there is a prejudice against single people, most of whom, of course, are women. It is a prejudice against single people in both the sense of people living alone and in the sense of people who have not married. I have argued in the past that the basic scales, which provide that a single person in both supplementary benefit and in pension gets 60 per cent. of what a married person gets, are not fair ratios. I do not believe that a single household needs only 60 per cent. as much as a double household. I have been assured by the right hon. Lady that the figure is based on research, but I hope that she will forgive me if I still have my doubts.
I want to confine my remarks to the category which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West mentioned. As he said, single people who look after dependants are beyond praise. There is nothing more depressing in one's constituency work— although one does it with great pleasure —than going round the wards of a geriatric hospital and finding there the many elderly people who are never visited. What a contrast that is with the situation, which the hon. Gentleman described, of the many people who, at great sacrifice,


are kept in their own homes! I fully agree that the State should do all it can to make it possible and even easy for single people to do this work.
I very much agreed with the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter, who stressed the need for everything possible to be done to enable the single person to continue at work, preferably in full-time work. There will obviously be occasions when that is impossible and in those cases the person concerned must continue in part-time work, if that is possible. It is a characteristic of modern medicine—thank goodness—that many people, who only a short time ago would have been bedridden and medically almost forgotten, are now ambulant, able to do a bit for themselves and yet not able fully to look after themselves. In other words, there are now many more people who, with a little help but without constant attendance, can lead independent lives in their own homes.
Given the right conditions there are many single women who could look after such people, but if a daughter gives up work altogether she is almost certainly storing up trouble for herself, a trouble which no State insurance scheme, however generous, can fully compensate. To begin with, she obviously reduces her income, but that is short-term. The trouble is that when the parent dies or has to go into hospital, the daughter's difficulties do not then end.
If she is under 60, she will probably find that she has lost her ability to find employment if she has been out of work for a long time. The National Insurance Scheme specifically provides for that eventuality for a widow who is over 50 and accepts the principle that a woman who has long been in domestic work to that extent finds it difficult to get employment. But that principle is not applied to a spinster who, in effect, is in exactly the same position.
Because she has not been earning over those years, she will find herself with little saved in terms of cash or possessions and, like other people who have been earning low incomes for a long lime, she will find that the circumstances of her life, the actual physical possessions, will be already run down before she starts on her retirement. Even apart from the economic and physical conditions of her life, if she has been cut off from ordinary

life for a long time and leading a very restricted life, she may find that she has lost some of the interest in life which a job would help her to keep.
I want to quote to the House a quotation from a letter written to the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, for which I am grateful to the Council, written by a woman such as I have described a year after the death of the dependent relative. She writes.
What has been brought home to me in this last year of freedom (so-called) is that all those lovely things one vaguely dreamed of doing ' when it is all over' just don't materialise out of a hat. One just cannot pick up the threads where normal life left off years ago, and a frightening and perplexing period of rehabilitation has to be lived through 
There is a tremendous case for trying to keep a single woman in employment, even though it is only part-time, so that she does not become dissociated and disconnected from life.
To do this—and I now have what I hope will be some constructive suggestions to make—the first thing we have to do is to remove what can only be called the built-in prejudice against part-timers, a prejudice which runs right through our insurance system. This is something which has been made much worse in the last year by the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax. Over and over again from these benches we warned that if S.E.T. were introduced, it would be made more difficult for a part-timer to get employment, because if a part-timer works more than eight hours, there is the same S.E.T. and the same insurance stamp as if he or she worked full time. This is a concept from which we have to get away.
Even before the introduction of S.E.T., the National Insurance system militated against the part-timer for the reason I have given. Yet we ought to be encouraging, and not discouraging, the single woman to do part-time work in these circumstances.
Secondly, I think that we should look at the earnings rule as it applies to the dependant's allowance payable to a sick person—£2 10s. a week for the dependant looking after him or her. This particular allowance is subject to a really harsh earnings rule. As I understand, there is no gradation. As soon as the woman begins to earn she incurs this earnings


rule and loses the allowance. Surely that is highly inequitable. In the not very dissimilar case of the widowed mother, we have now—and we thought this was a very good thing done by the present Government—decided to remove the earnings rule, as, in the previous years, under the previous Administration, it was gradually relaxed. Why, then, is it necessary to have a rule of this character in this case? I myself do not see the reason for it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West and others have referred also to matters of housing. I do not intend to follow them in great detail because I think that most of the points have been made, but, nevertheless, the importance of housing is absolutely critical, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his Motion when he refers specifically to housing.
One of the most important sorts of housing which needs to be provided in the future is the sort of what one may call semi-independent accommodation attached to the family home. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) has pointed out that there will be fewer spinsters available for this work, and I would say that even today we should be providing the sort of accommodation where either the parents or a parent could live in a semi-independent way, because in that case, even although the daughter may come in on some occasions—may be available round the corner—nevertheless, it is the mother of the family who can just keep an eye on things. Or there may be a situation in which there is a warden available, at the push of a bell, if an emergency should arise.
Then, as has been mentioned, there is the holiday home. Many local authorities already reserve in their old people's homes a certain number of places for old people in these conditions. I think that this should be done more.
I would now mention a provision which has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but which helps enormously I visited recently in my own constituency a rehabilitation centre, originally started by the L.C.C. and now run by the Kensington and Chelsea Borough. There the elderly and disabled people, not only the physically disabled but also simply

the elderly, go, and are given useful work to do. They are taken in a special bus which takes account of their disabilities, and are taught to help themselves as useful members of society. As well as doing that, they are helping also whoever it was at home who was looking after them. We have talked already about domiciliary help, and about district nurses. All these services count.
We have not said a great deal about tax reliefs, and I would say a little about that. I realise, of course, that this is primarily a Budget matter, but since it is my thesis that as far as possible we should keep these single women in work there is a direct relevance with Income Tax provisions. We should do everything, surely, in terms of tax relief to see that these single women are enabled to stay in work.
To last year's Finance Bill we put down some Amendments to increase the housekeeper allowance, and I think that this is extremely relevant, to extend it to single people in full-time work and with dependants. I know that the right hon. Lady cannot answer about this. I know that she will be just as cagey about this issue as the Chancellor himself would be this afternoon, but I ask her, since she has a month for her charm and persuasiveness to work on the Chancellor— would not this be a really constructive way of helping the single women whom we are talking about?
We also put down to last year's Finance Bill a new Clause to increase the dependent relative income limit. This is another means which would be possible, and I hope that perhaps the right hon. Lady's persuasiveness may be applied to that, too. We put down another Clause suggesting constant attendance allowance payable to a single woman herself—and this accords with what has been said in this debate. I think that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who particularly made the point that it was important that the single woman herself should feel she had an income, but I think that it is also true that the tax allowance should be applied to the single woman.
We very seriously bring these considerations to the attention of the right hon. Lady not because we expect an answer now, but because we believe that in keeping a single woman in work it is


very important to look at the tax situation in which she is; and let no one suggest for a minute that this is something which applies only to the well to do. The tax begins to bite on a single person at a pretty low level.
My final point refers to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West, discussed, namely, the National Insurance system itself. The Government should seriously look at this contrast. I have already referred to the attendance allowance payable to a sick person if he or she has a dependant looking after him or her. There is no such allowance payable, as I understand, to a retired person. This is a very important point, since in a very large number of the cases the hon. Gentleman referred to the person who is being cared for is, after all, a retired person.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): The constant attendance allowance is payable only with industrial injuries benefit, not with sickness benefit. So it is payable to a fairly small number in the country at present.

Mr. Worsley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I understood that constant attendance allowance was payable only with the Industrial Injuries Scheme, but that there was payable in the case of sickness benefit a payment of £2 10s. which could be paid either to the wife, if looking after a sick person, or to another dependent relative in the house.
I think that I am right. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong. It is not the constant attendance allowance. If I used that phrase I was wrong, but I think that it is an attendance allowance which applies to a sick person and not to a retired person and that the Government might very seriously look at the possibility of extending what, I understand, applies to sick people to retired people as well.
I know that there are great difficulties. We wish, of course, that there had been set up in the Ministry, a research unit which would have done these things. We have argued that before, and I shall not argue it again now, but what I urge is that the first priority, in dealing with this matter, should be to try to make it easy for the single woman to remain in work. I think that by putting the priority

there we shall be putting the priority in the right place.

5.59 p.m.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I want to join with all the others who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on his choice of subject when he was fortunate in the Ballot, and I should like to thank him for the most constructive way in which he dealt with the problem. I should also like to join all the others who have paid a very great tribute to the Rev. Mary Webster. I am certain she has highlighted one of the real social problems in our country today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is all for pressure groups. So am I. I think it important that these groups should be continually showing the need where need exists.
I was also delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby took part in the debate. I knew long before I worked with him over those two years what a deep interest he had in all matters that affect women, not just single women and their problems that we are discussing today but women generally. It was like a breath of fresh air to hear him giving so vividly and so well his points of view on the many problems that affect women.
In the time available to me, I should like to deal with the matters contained in the Motion. There is no doubt that for the single woman who has to care for an elderly father or mother, or both parents, or who takes on a responsibility for some other elderly near relation, the social problems involved are very great. I have the very greatest sympathy with these women, and with the case that has been made for them today.
I sometimes think that if families would accept greater responsibilities than they do the position of single women would not be nearly as serious as it is. I had an elderly mother. It was a great joy to me to be able to ensure that she was cared for and had the affection and love that I should like to see all such old people having. I was fortunate in being a member of a very closely-knit family. The moral support, apart from anything else, that I got from my brothers was very great indeed.
But I also know of the experience of many of my friends. Many of them have to accept not only financial responsibility for their elderly parents, but all the other responsibilities, and the rest of the family sit back saying that those who are taking on the responsibilities have no other ties. I hope that the debate, if it gets any publicity at all, will bring home to people the moral responsibilities that families have for the care of their parents. They should not be left completely to the single daughter who so often has to carry the burden.
I think that we might sum up the discussion in this way. What we are really asking today is how the community can best discharge the responsibilities that it is increasingly coming to accept towards old people who are in varying degree helpless or dependent on help, and how far that help should be in kind—we have, of course, provision in hospitals and old people's homes and by home nursing and home helps—and how far it should be in cash support, or a mixture of both.
I was very interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody). I feel with her and others who feel that, if it is at all humanly possible, the single woman should stay at work. I believe that for many reasons but particularly from the point of view of the good of the single woman herself. If we have as our primary object keeping the single woman at work, we have to ascertain how this is possible within the present set-up or what can be done more than is being done now to make it possible.
First of all, I would refer to the difficulties faced by the single woman who is at work. She carries out her own job during the day, and then very often during the evenings—and, indeed, during the nights and during weekends—she has the whole responsibility of the ageing parent or relative. She is trying to cope with two jobs. Very often when it comes to her annual holiday from work she uses the period to give relief for such domestic help as she may have, and allow her to have a holiday.
I agree with those who have said that provision ought to be made to meet these cases. It might be provision in geriatric

units, as in some areas. Perhaps the ageing parent or relative could go to a home for old people for a fortnight or three weeks so that the daughter, whether in work or out of work, could have a complete break away from the problems that she constantly faces.
I was interested in the reaction of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has always shown great interest in these problems, when an hon. Friend of mine talked about "difficult old people". Whatever age group one takes, one does not find every single person in it sweet and angelic, and that goes for the elderly also. From this point of view there are very great difficulties for whoever is caring for elderly persons. Single women bearing these responsibilities ought to have greater provision made for them by local authorities and the hospital services so that for a fortnight or three weeks they would be able to get away for a holiday completely on their own.
There are other ways of helping. In the case of the single woman who is out at work and has a parent who needs to be cared for, we have various services available apart from the hospitals, geriatric units, and so on. There are the home nursing services. I know that in some areas they are very fully stretched. We also have the home helps; some areas are much better supplied with them than other areas are. Both the nursing services and the home help service can be of very great assistance in caring for old persons if their single daughters are out at work.
If the old person is in need by supplementary benefit standards, extra help can be provided. If extra domestic help is needed in that person's home, that is taken into account and the Supplementary Benefits Commission can add to that person's weekly supplementary pension.
Sometimes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, it is not the single woman who is faced with this kind of problem. There may be a married man with an invalid wife. No matter how low a wage the man may be earning, he can get no help at all from supplementary benefits for the care of his wife. If there is an ageing parent, however, who, because of her financial circumstances needs help, not only will she receive a supplementary pension, but


if there is a big cost for domestic help that cost will also be taken into account.
The daughter caring for the ageing parent might be a professional woman, earning a very good salary, yet none of her income would be taken into account in assessing the needs of the ageing relative. There is not a family means test in this country.
I hope that this debate will let the single women know what help is available. The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport raised the point that there may be two old people living together, requiring separate rooms, which will mean separate lighting and heating. Under the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, in the discretionary allowances, that double cost would be taken into account in assessing the weekly needs of that old couple. I hope that this kind of help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be publicised as widely as possible.
There has been mention of the need for the co-ordination of various services. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Report that we would be expecting soon from the Seebohm Committee. Now that an old person is in receipt of supplementary benefits and we have a standard long-term addition, our representatives who visit the old persons do not have to spend such an amount of time on the smaller discretionary allowances that can be paid. Because of that, they have greater time available to give attention to the welfare needs of the person. In other words, they can let the old person, or the daughter who is taking some responsibility, know what facilities are provided by the local authority and voluntary organisations.
I am hoping that my officials in the Supplementary Benefits Commission, just as the officials of the National Assistance Board did, will do their utmost to ensure that there is this measure of co-ordination and that whatever facilities are available are brought to the notice of the old person, the daughter, or the husband who is responsible for the care of the person concerned.
I want to turn to the single woman who has to give up her job. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, even if one is willing to pay for domestic help, it cannot be found. Local authorities cannot find the necessary numbers of home helps. Sometimes there is nothing else for it but

that the daughter must give up her work and look after the ageing relative. When that is the case there can be great difficulties of isolation, and that is why I am so keen that the women should remain at work if they can. There are the difficulties of suffering a drop in one's income and having to eat into one's savings, and there are insurance difficulties.
I wish to tell the House what facilities are available for these women. First of all, if they do not have an income from savings, then, in their own right, they can receive benefit from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. What is important is that those women who will be expected to go out to work at some time later in their lives, can receive, during the period when they are caring for the old person, an extra discretionary allowance in addition to their supplementary benefits, with which to pay their weekly National Insurance stamp.
The introduction of supplementary benefits on 28th November last has also been a great help to many of those women who will have to give up work. Previously, if they had over £600 in the bank they could not get a penny under the old National Assistance scheme. Great changes have been made and they can now have up to £800 in savings, which will be totally disregarded. If that were all of the savings they had, they would then receive the full weekly supplementary benefit. That must make a very great difference to those women.
Matters have been raised which do not affect my Department, and housing is one of the most important. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) spoke about the need to provide houses for old persons with two bedrooms, not just one. This is very important. I have always felt it wrong that, where local authorities provide houses for old people, they should provide them with a living room and one bedroom. For many reasons, particularly for the sanity of the daughter, who has given up her work to look after the aged person, an extra bedroom is a necessity.
Whatever has been said in this debate on the subject of housing will be taken to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Different local authorities deal with this problem in various ways. One local authority, not far away from


my own, tries to ensure that its old people are housed by it as near to a close relative as possible. That is a very great help to these old people. Other local authorities have what one might call "sheltered" housing for old people. There is a resident warden, able to take care of them. This, too, is a great help for the daughter who has to go out to work, since it gives her peace of mind.
On the question of taxation, I can say no more than a word or two. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), who made a most interesting speech, will not expect me to be able to give an opinion on his proposals this afternoon. I know that the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants has brought this matter very much to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that it is a question which, among all the other matters which he is examining, my right hon. Friend will take into account. I cannot guarantee what the result of his consideration will be.
I know from my own experience, which was not such a difficult experience as that of many of my friends and many of those who write to the National Council, that there is a grave social problem here. It is one which we should be trying in every way we can to solve. We should search every avenue for ways to give help, and how best to give it, for the sake of all the single women, for the sake of the man with the invalid wife and for the sake of the old people themselves. We have to take them all into consideration in trying to find the best means of setting about it.
All that has been said today concerning the affairs of my Department will be taken into account, and the rest will be passed to the Ministers concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes the burden of maintaining dependent relatives, usually elderly parents, borne by thousands of single women, and that in carrying out a filial duty the daughter is performing a service which otherwise would have to be undertaken by social security and public welfare services; that this frequently involves many years of financial and physical strain; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action to lighten these burdens by providing new social security benefits, and urges welfare and housing

authorities locally to assist single women in this situation with such help that they can go on caring for their relatives at home without undue stress.

BURDEN ON RATEPAYERS

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the heavy and ever-increasing burden imposed on ratepayers as the result of the policies of the present Government; notes, in particular, that high interest rates, increases in taxation, and inadequate provision by way of general and rate support grant have accentuated the difficulties of local authorities and individual ratepayers; deplores the fact that rebates provided for individual ratepayers are, in part, being provided at the cost of other ratepayers and are, in any event, inadequate; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action to redeem their election pledge to give early relief to ratepayers.
At the outset, I express my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and to all hon. Members, including the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security, who took part in the previous debate for their kindness in letting me have time to move and discuss the second balloted Motion today. It looked rather a tight fit at one stage. This is the first time in 19 years that I have been privileged to win a place in the Ballot, although I have gone in for it consistently on every occasion. Naturally, therefore, I chose one of my pet hobby-horses, the burden on the ratepayers, even if I have only got in, as I say, by a short head.
This is a matter of vital importance, as I think you know, Mr. Speaker, remembering that you were always very interested in it, particularly at this time of year. My Motion
deplores the heavy and ever-increasing burden imposed on ratepayers as a result of the policies of the present Government
and it draws attention to the reasons for it.
At the last two general elections, the Labour Party promised the country that, if it was elected, people would no longer be subject to further heavy increases in rates. In passing, I must say that it promised the same to the taxpayer, too. We all know what happened in that direction, and I expect it will happen again in the next Budget on 11th April.
In the past two and a half years, ratepayers throughout the country have had, on average, an overall increase of about 25 per cent. in their rates, which certainly justifies my description of "heavy and ever-increasing" applied to the burden shouldered by ratepayers generally. This year, fortunately—I am the first to admit it—there has been an all-out attempt by the Government and local authorities to stabilise the rates. I have no doubt that the Minister will make particular reference to that, but, of course, if the Government had done nothing this year, there would have been a tremendous outcry directed at the Labour Party, especially at a time when people's incomes are virtually all frozen.
As far as I can tell, the domestic ratepayer, helped through the standard rate relief of 5d. in the £, will have to pay, on average, a very slight increase—not much more than 1 per cent., I expect the Minister will tell us—but we still have to remember that, in contrast to the domestic ratepayer, factories, shops and other non-domestic ratepayers will have to meet an increase of about 5 per cent. This is no mean increase, and in one form or another it will, without doubt, eventually be passed back to the public.
In any event, at what cost have the Government done their stabilising act this year? No doubt, they will claim that for householders the relief has come in the main as a result of their scheme by which £23 million of domestic element has been set aside in the new rate support grant for 1967–68 for the benefit of the domestic ratepayer. I imagine that if none of the unusual circumstances of this year had obtained the domestic ratepayer would once again have had to meet an increased demand of about 1s. in the £, but, because of the 5d. support grant, it has been brought down to about 7d.
What else has happened to close the gap? With great regularity last autumn, the Government instructed local authorities to hold down their rate increases by reviewing all claims for expenditure. This has meant that local authorities have cut back drastically on their spending commitments. My own town of Croydon has cut back by about £570,000, which represents about 7d. in the £ in the Croydon rate. Second, some authorities have taken the opportunity to reduce

the level of their rate poundage as a result of a change in the interest rates on consolidated loan funds. But this means that such authorities are really mortgaging their future, for, while there will be a reduction in the cost of loan charges in the early years of the loans in question, there will inevitably, and regrettably, be an increase in later years.
First, on the subject of cuts, will the Government give a clear indication on some sort of global basis of what commitments have been cut and how many commitments have merely been rephased so that, in effect, sharper rate increases may be expected by ratepayers in April next year? I have no doubt that a good many authorities have been rephasing their capital schemes on which they had hoped to embark during the next 12 months. If the tempo of capital spending is permanently reduced, annual savings will be effected but if, in yielding to the Government's pressure, local authorities attempt in the year 1968–69 to push ahead again with their retarded schemes, then, as The Timessaid on 7th March, there could be some swingeing rate increases to follow in 1968.
In anticipation of substantially higher demands for rates in the years ahead, I would also like to know from the Government why they have not honoured their pledge to the electorate in their 1964 election manifesto "New Britain ", which at page 14 categorically said that Labour would transfer a larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer. The same question came up today at Question Time. This might be just a case of passing the burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, but at least it would spread the burden. I would like to know why the Government have not implemented that promise. If it were carried out, it would certainly have a substantial effect on rates in general.
I remember, too, when the Leader of the House indicated that the Government had in mind an altogether new system for rating finance. That was only a short while ago. This could well be the case, because in Labour's 1966 manifesto, "Time for Decision", page 18 stated that there was an area in which tax reform was urgently required in the rating system and that a Labour Government would introduce major reforms in local finance. I would like to know from the Minister


whether the Government have something up their sleeve for the near future. Those of us who are closely interested in such rating generally and its unfair effects upon individual ratepayers, with all its various anomalies, would certainly like to know what the Government have in mind. My Motion indicates how Government policies substantially increase the costs of local authorities.
I would like to tell the Minister on a lower plane where some savings in cost could be achieved. I refer to avoidance of duplication that is occurring, particularly in London, in such matters as planning between the Greater London Council and the local authorites, such as Croydon. Croydon has complained strongly. It is a planning authority in itself and yet the G.L.C. gets involved in local details of planning rather than overall principles.
I always said that that would happen when Croydon was pushed into Greater London. If time were available I could give plenty of chapter and verse for what I am saying. Some control might, of course, be necessary for the small local authority which was not able to be properly advised professionally. It is, however, absurd, in respect of land transactions by large towns and cities with long-established, experienced valuation departments.
At a time when valuers are in very great demand, particularly as a result of the considerable work caused by the Land Commission Act, this duplication of effort should immediately be eradicated. If the Government looked into the matter properly they would find that there could be a great saving in manpower and that the efficiency of the country would be increased by much more rapid decisions.
I sometimes wonder whether the public realise what big business local government is today. As we in the House know, local government expenditure is reaching something like 40 per cent. of the national budget. Adoption by the local authorities of more modern, commercial, streamlined administrative methods could bring about vast savings to the ratepayer. That is emphasised by the fact that about 6 per cent. of the working population is employed by local authorities.
Some local authorities have been very farsighted in calling in management con-

sultants. I believe that Bromley and Bournemouth, for example, have done this and I gather that large savings have been achieved. It might be a very good idea for the Government to make similar recommendations to other local authorities, particularly the larger ones, and to have an all-out efficiency drive in this direction, which could easily reduce expenditure by about 2½ per cent., which would represent about £100 million a year. Such a target would be well worth striving for and I strongly advocate that the Government should pursue this course.
My Motion also deplores the fact that rebates provided for individual ratepayers are often still far too inadequate and are, in any event, provided at the cost of the other ratepayers. Croydon, for example, has had to appoint 12 additional staff to do this work. Naturally, all this has to be paid for by the other ratepayers. In addition, however, the council has to bear 25 per cent. of the allowances which are given by way of these rebates, and this again has to be provided by the other ratepayers.
All that the Government, in effect, have done in giving that easement to such deserving cases is to place the cost of those reliefs upon the other ratepayers. This is simply a juggling operation at their expense. Obviously, in the main, this relief should have come in total from the Exchequer. Again, therefore, it would have been on a broader basis rather than on the specific shoulders of the local ratepayers, which is very unfair. When this matter was discussed previously in the House, we on this side stressed that aspect of it.
It is important to make the point that the abandonment until 1973 of revaluation for rating purposes, which was to have been carried out next year, was to my mind a retrograde step. If the rating system is to be kept at maximum efficiency, frequent revaluations are surely necessary to keep pace with changing values if we are to have any kind of buoyancy in the system. What has happened is that because of the Land Commission Act and the Capital Gains Tax, valuers in the Inland Revenue have had so much extra work that this postponement has become compulsory. In effect, the rating system is suffering on behalf of national taxation.
Another point is that over the years I campaigned to make nationalised industries pay proper rates, particularly for offices. This, I admit—and I am grateful to the Government—has been achieved, but it should not be the end of the road. It should be followed by all nationalised properties of an ordinary commercial or industrial character being separately rated in the normal way. Only by these means will there be rating justice to individual local authorities.
Crown properties, too, of an ordinary character should be rated in the usual way and not made the subject of Crown distribution in lieu of rates. When the Post Office becomes a public corporation, I trust that all Post Office properties will likewise be rated in the same way as privately-owned properties. At present, Post Office properties are subject to contribution in lieu of rates. Again, I suggest that as in Croydon, the Government should take immediate steps to ensure that all local authorities see that council tenants who can afford to do so pay proper economic rents for council dwellings. If I were asked again what an economic rent would be, I would say that it was one which was not directly subsidised by other ratepayers.
In all my years in the House I have campaigned for the correction of rating anomalies. I was for years the only Conservative Member who advocated the abolition of industrial derating, which we managed to achieve in two main bouts. The points which I have made tonight are at least worthy of the closest consideration. The Government may feel that in the present year they have bought time to avoid yet again a further substantial demand, particularly upon the domestic ratepayer. Unless, very soon, we have sight of the promised major reforms in local finance, we shall find that this is a temporary relief and will be followed, regrettably by dramatic increases in later years. Therefore, I request the Government in the strongest terms to redeem their pledges at the last two elections to give permanent, early relief to ratepayers and to face the issue instead of dodging it.

6.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West

(Mr. Frederic Harris) has deployed his case very successfully and it is only courteous to him that I should rise now and not risk missing the opportunity of dealing with the points which he has made.
On these occasions it is customary to congratulate an hon. Member on his success in the Ballot. However, this time I feel a certain amount of commiseration with the hon. Gentleman, because when he went in for the Ballot he was not to know how very successful the Government's policy had been in keeping down rates. He began his speech very fairly with a series of points where the Government had dealt with the problem, saying that it had worked and that rates had not increased in the way that he had feared.
One particular point he dealt with was the share of rates borne by the domestic ratepaper. As he said, probably more than any other hon. Member he was responsible for forcing his party to take into rating the full value of industrial hereditaments.
The position is that whereas in about 1955 the share of the domestic ratepaper was 60 per cent. and in the last year of the Conservative Administration it was 48 per cent., this year it was 47 per cent. and next year it will be about 46 per cent. That shows that we are succeeding in keeping down the share of the domestic ratepayer.
As he acknowledged, one of the reasons has been the all-out effort of local authorities to keep down their expenditure. I should not myself have chosen this moment to have a debate on the subject, in case it looked as if one did not pay full tribute to local authorities of all parties for their wisdom and statesmanship in meeting the national need and doing this. They have done it, and it is something for which the Government are extremely grateful.
In a time when the rate support grant was going forward, we had hon. Members opposite vying with each other in their prophecies of gloom. It was rather like Hexham prophesying its thousands and Chester its tens of thousands. One right hon. Gentleman opposite prophesied that we should see an increase of 10 per cent. However, the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) thought that that was pusillanimous stuff and said that it would be


20 per cent. I have not the complete picture, but it is not my fault that we are having the debate now and have to take the existing picture. As far as we can tell at the moment, general rates are going up by less than 5 per cent., and domestic rates are going up by less than 1 per cent.

Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. Gentleman attributes something to me which was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). It was he who mentioned the figure of 20 per cent.

Mr. MacColl: I will check my reference again, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that he was so intoxicated by the chase, when he thought he had the Government on the run, that he ventured a figure. In any event, I am happy to take the figure of an ex-Minister and a Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition.
What is the position in Croydon? After reorganisation, rates went up by 1s. 6d. That was not our fault, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West criticised the last Conservative Administration for it. The hon. Gentleman said that they would go up again this year, nearer to 20 per cent. In the event, they went up only 10 per cent.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I did not say anything about the Croydon rates going up 20 per cent.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is obviously another of those who forget in the full heat of the chase. He said it during the Second Reading of the Rating Act. Croydon's general rate is going up by 3d. Because of the Government's policy the domestic rate will go down by 2d.
Take the case of Harrow, which is another Conservative Greater London borough. There the rate is going down by 10d. In the case of Hemel Hemp-stead, which is an expanding borough, the position is unchanged. Those are all boroughs on behalf of whom there has been agitation in the House for something more to be done to keep down the appalling burden of rates.
The other point about which the hon. Gentleman complained was the inade-

quacy of the rate support grant, and he asked what was to happen. Local authority expenditure was going up by about 9 per cent., and the Government took the responsibility of saying that that was too high in the public interest. They did not say that it would mean cuts and that services would go down, but that it would not be so easy to make improvements which we should all like to see. With the Government cuts, the increase was estimated at 4½per cent. The position now is that we are paying 1 per cent. more on this increased expenditure and directing those payments specifically to help domestic ratepayers.
The hon. Gentleman asked if that did not mean swingeing increases next year. We shall increase the proportion which we are paying under the rate support grant next year, and we shall also double the amount which goes into the domestic element. That indicates that we are taking steps to deal with the difficult problems which arise from the fact that the burden on the local authorities is liable to go up as the social services and the population increase.
The hon. Gentleman talked rather coldly about the rate rebate scheme and dismissed it as being of no particular value. However, let us compare it with the Act which the last Conservative Government produced. The hon. Gentleman may not know that there was one, but his Government introduced a scheme for rebates in 1964. Under that scheme, £212,000 was paid out to poor ratepayers in three years. Under our scheme £15 million has been paid out in one year, which is more than 60 times as much. That means that something like 1 million people on average are getting half their rates met out of the grant.
I did not myself check the hon. Gentleman's figures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), who is a little more cautious before he ventures into this sort of discussion, took the trouble by means of a Question to obtain the figures of what was happening in London. Under the Tory Act, Croydon was paid nothing, and Harrow was paid nothing. Under our Act, Croydon is getting £130,000, and Harrow is getting £88,500. That is clear evidence of the effectiveness of our scheme.
The hon. Member says that it is a monstrous injustice that we are asking a local authority to pay 25 per cent. of the cost itself. We think of that as being reasonably fair. We think that in any scheme where the local authority is getting the advantage of a more just rate system it is only reasonable that it should pay a fair part of the cost.
Again, what was the position under the Tory Government? Did the Tory Government pay 75 per cent. of nil? No. They paid 50 per cent, of nil. Either the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that nobody ever really thought that the Tory scheme would work or would produce any money, and therefore that was the reason why it had a low grant of 50 per cent., or it is irresponsible to criticise us, who have produced a very much more effective scheme—it is not perfect, but it is a scheme that is producing results—and are paying half as much again as a proportion of the figures. These show that we are not only succeeding in holding the rate increase but that we are increasing the proportion that is borne on central Government funds.

Mr. David Winnick: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this sum of money which has been granted, more than £130,000, shows the amount of acute hardship suffered by those living on small fixed incomes prior to the Act being passed?

Mr. MacColl: It does indeed show that. It also shows the number of people who were not getting the kind of help they needed. My only regret is that more people are not applying for the rebates. That is a problem that does arise, in persuading people to use the opportunities open to them.
The hon. Member asked me about the long-term picture, about what was going to happen. We can say quite reasonably that we have produced an effective scheme in conditions of very great difficulty and in conditions of great economic crisis. Everybody is demanding reductions in public expenditure. One cannot open a newspaper without seeing calls for the slow-down of increases in public expenditure. When we take steps to slow down the increase in local expenditure, and to shift more of it over to the central Government, it does not lie in the mouth of the Con-

servative Party to blame us that we have not been able to do more. Of course, we would like to do more, but we are satisfied with what we have done. We have done sufficient to show the seriousness of our intention to do a great deal more as we get the opportunity.
The position about the long-term future of local government finance is that it must depend very much upon the future of local government organisation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of education. That is a very good example of it. A lot depends on the size of the education authority in the future, and that is something which the Royal Commission is looking at. Upon that will depend the kind of local government financial scheme that we need. It has often been said in the House that the final answer to the reorganisation of local government finance must depend upon the position of local government reorganisation. These are some of the things that we have been able to do.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of high interest rates. Under the Housing Subsidies Bill, which has now passed through the House, the major item of capital expenditure is shielded by the new subsidy, which is based on paying the difference between the market rate and 4 per cent. That is the major part of local government capital investment. The adjustments which we made—they are complicated and technical, and I will not detain the House by describing them now—to the mortgage loans pools and the Consolidated Loans Funds by altering the rate to 5 per cent. from 3½ per cent. credited to local authorities, are of considerable help to local authorities, particularly in the field of housing, who use those two different methods.
The quota arrangement for borrowing from the P.W.L.B. means that over half the local authority capital expenditure is financed at a rate of 6 per cent. or less. That particularly helps the small authorities, to whom the P.W.L.B. quota is of more importance and significance than it is to the large authorities.
These show that against the background of great difficulties, all the evidence is that our policy is doing a tremendous lot to keep down the burden of rates, and this year we have had the smallest increase in rates for years.
It is quite true that in past years the argument has been advanced, and questions have been asked whether the rate is increasing in terms of compound interest. To get a picture of the sort of uncontrolled building up of the rate burden, 10 years ago the increase in rates per head was something like 19½ per cent. The first year of the Labour Government, when we were in difficulties, in getting our policy in order to cope with the economic and financial difficulties, the increase was 12 per cent. In the current year it is 10·8 per cent. I have no doubt that next year it will be very much less than that.
Although I am very glad to have had this opportunity to put before the House the facts of the situation, the hon. Gentleman was singularly ill-judged in moving his Motion at this time, at the very moment when every day we see in the newspapers headlines snowing rate increases of nil or reductions.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I should like to add my congratulations and those of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) for the-way in which he moved this Motion, and more particularly on the very long-drawn-out battle which he has fought on behalf of the ratepayers.
This debate has possibly been worthwhile if only to give a moment of pleasure to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is so very rare that the Government think that they have a good case, that it is really a cause for congratulations, and my heart warmed to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in such a happy mood. I stress the fact that it was a "moment", because I am afraid that these moments of joy for ratepayers are very passing phases indeed.
I had a most interesting letter from the Secretary of the Rating and Valuation

Association, who explained how this moment of pleasure had been brought about. He said that
Local authorities have entered into the spirit of the freeze.
So one can see local authorities standing like icebergs, their expenditure frozen to the ground, really enjoying themselves "in the spirit of the freeze". But had the Conservative Party been in power, local authority expenditure would have been able to have been paid for out of the growth in the economy which always takes place during our periods of office.
I have to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, even in this moment of ecstasy which he is having over the rate situation, that there are some matters of sleight of hand which very often mask the true picture. He has to realise that in this year 1967–68 there will be very severe drawing on balances by many local authorities throughout the country. In the County of Cheshire, where I live, there will be a rate increase of 3d. in the £, but there will be a drawing on balances also of about 3d. in the £ in order to stabilise rates. In another county, of which I have news, that is Derbyshire, the rate at the moment should have been 9s. 11½d., but they levied a rate of 8s. 6d. because they were drawing on their balances to an enormous extent to keep the rate poundages steady.
This state of affairs is being brought about by the generosity of local authorities in meeting the present Government. I do not criticise them for that. They are doing their best in the national interest, but one must realise that their rate balances are being drawn on very heavily indeed.

I have news of two very poor counties—

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business.)

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) to move the Second Reading of the Bill I have two observations to make. First, I want a balanced debate, and I shall be grateful if hon. Members will indicate to me in some way or other on which side they are on the question, so that I can see that the debate is fairly shared out.
Secondly, I have selected the Amendment on the Second Reading in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever).
I have also selected the two Instructions, that in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chatham), and that in the name of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). These cannot be moved until after the Question for the Second Reading has been decided in the affirmative.
I am advised, however, that these Instructions encompass two of the main arguments against the Bill, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if both the Instructions were discussed during the debate on the Second Reading. After we have taken the Amendment to the Second Reading we can, if the Second Reading is carried, take Divisions on the two Instructions.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before carrying on with the main debate. I would like to give the background to the origin of the Bill which is the brain-child of a local businessman. Speaking on a more personal basis, I never thought on the day about four years ago when this vast project was first introduced to Brighton Planning Committee, of which I was then a member, that one day I would be standing in this House moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
The marina scheme was submitted to
Brighton Corporation four years ago, and even though some heat has been engendered since then by ill-informed

critics, I have had no reason to change my mind about the Bill being in the best interests of Brighton and its citizens.
More than four years ago Brighton appeared to be standing at the crossroads with regard to its development in the post-war period, and many people had become worried because they felt that perhaps Brighton was falling behind with modern development and had lost its sense of direction. I think it is significant that this concern was felt by people of all political parties, and of none, and that the same view was shared by officials at the town hall as well as by the ordinary man in the street.
A few years ago before the Bill was first brought forward, or before the marina project was put before the town council, the position had begun to change, and certain businessmen had begun to have renewed faith in Brighton. As a brief instance, and purely as an aside, I mention the Hotel Metropole development which has helped to make Brighton one of the foremost conference towns in the country. At the same time, there were certain educational developments which gave us a new college of technology, a new college of education, and Sussex University, which put us among the foremost towns from the point of view of having a seat of learning.
But all that was not enough, so when the marina scheme was put forward to the council four years ago many of us on the local authority—I was a member then and I am today—believed that here was a scheme which would assist Brighton, a town of many facets, to evolve another role in the second half of the 20th century.
The marina scheme has been described by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's inspector who conducted a local inquiry as being an asset to the town as a holiday resort as well as being of financial benefit to the town. The Minister of Housing and Local Government accepted his inspector's views, and it is interesting to note that the Minister's comments in his letter conveying his decision to approve the marina scheme indicated that he thought the proposal to be "a bold, imaginative and attractive scheme ".
I want to draw attention to the other reasons for which I and the supporters


of the marina scheme believe that it is essential that the Bill should go forward. First, there is the urgent need to provide additional boating accommodation on the South Coast. That these facilities are urgently required no yachtsman or boat owner would ever dare, or could, deny, and it is necessary to point out that ten years ago there were fewer than 100,000 people enjoying the sport of yachting and boating, whereas now there are more than 500,000.
I want, too, to draw attention to the fact that the South Eastern region in which the marina will be situated contains the overwhelming proportion of people interested in yachting and boating, and it is also pertinent to point out that in almost all local yacht harbours there are long waiting lists. This is confirmed by the inquiry inspector's conclusions in paragraph 489 of his report where he says:
… because of the present unmet and ever-increasing demand for yacht moorings, the need to provide new harbours such as that proposed is now urgent and will intensify in the future.
The inspector is obviously aware of developments in this matter, and it is my firm belief that within the next few years, as personal affluence grows, we are likely to have as much trouble with the boat as we have today with the car. I remain firmly of the opinion that if resorts such as Brighton get schemes off the ground now and provide for the future in this direction we shall go a long way towards alleviating serious problems in the years ahead.
Here again perhaps I might put in another aside. It is meant to be jocular, but there is a certain grain of truth in it. There was a time in this country when the very thought of council tenants having cars outside their houses, or television aerials on their roofs, brought forth some criticism of them, but today everybody accepts that it is in order for council tenants to have television sets and cars, and in the area from which I come, and in the ward which I represent in Brighton, for the first time boats are to be seen parked in the gardens of council houses. It is obvious that as personal affluence grows this sport will extend to wider areas of the population, and therefore it will be in our interest to do something about it.
I wish to deal with the on-shore development in connection with the marina. The Bill provides powers which will permit the reclamation of about 35 acres of land. Let us consider this, because many hon. Members will have seen the brochure distributed by the Brighton Marina Company laying out the proposals for this site and its development.
This marina will have a tremendous effect on life in Brighton during the next few years if it comes to pass. It will enable Brighton to enhance its position as a leading holiday resort. Apart from this development and the provision of an ice-rink, as oceanarium, and other amenities, there will be provision for 800 units of permanent residential accommodation.
The main purpose of the marina scheme is to provide boating facilities, but no scheme to provide purely boating facilities would be a viable economic proposition, and therefore the marina has to be backed with other developments. Again the inspector acknowledges this in paragraph 491 of his report where he says that the evidence tends to show that the provision of a harbour and its ancillary buildings would not be an economic proposition without the proposed allied on-shore development.
Some local criticism—small in volume —has endeavoured to show that this is not the ideal site for a yachting harbour. The Marina Company, at no little expense, has employed a firm of consultants and other experts to investigate that very position. Tests have shown that the site is ideal for the purpose—certainly more acceptable than the two previous sites suggested, in other parts of Brighton.
Again, if we want confirmation of that point to confound the critics, paragraph 490 of the inspector's report states that
From the point of view of yachtsmen, the location of the present site would be a good one from virtually every aspect.
There is not much doubt about that view, and if anybody still doubts the proposition that the site is suitable he should read the comments of Group Captain Haylock, an eminent authority on the subject—a member of the General Purposes Committee of the Royal Yachting Association and a past editor of Yachting World—retained by the Company in


support of the application at the local inquiry. The group captain is in hearty support of the application to build on the proposed site.
Furthermore, the Brighton Fishermen and Boatmen's Protection Society, which includes all the professional Brighton fishermen in its ranks, supports the creation of the marina on this site, as does the Sussex Motor Yacht Club and the Brighton Cruising Club. I mention these organisations purely in relation to the marine aspect of the matter and the criticisms raised in that direction.
I want now to deal with the marina on the basis of some of the more absurd and frenetic criticisms levelled by people who are nothing more than civic flatearthers. To listen to some of the more ridiculous critics, one would think that a group of greedy speculators had come along and in some act of brigandage had stolen the foreshore from Brighton's citizens without so much as a by-your-leave.
Let us examine this allegation. The matter came before Brighton's planning committee four years ago. It was received enthusiastically from the outset and the committee gave its consent, subject to a decision by the whole of the town council. The town council gave an overwhelming mandate to the project and received all-party support from Conservative, Labour and Liberal councillors. That was four years ago, since when, using the usual democratic processes, it was open to critics to express opposition to candidates supporting the marina in local town council elections. But the marina never became an issue at the council elections, and no councillor was ever displaced because he supported the marina. It can therefore be confidently claimed that in the absence of opposition the people of Brighton were for it.
But even if it were felt that the councillors of all political parties had made a grave error, two further events gave an indication of public feeling. First, in view of the magnitude of the scheme the Ministry of Housing and Local Government decided to hold a public inquiry and in January, 1966, for nine days, the matter was ventilated publicly and at length. No views were suppressed, and in due course the Minister approved the scheme.
But even if all these safeguards were not sufficient, one other matter inter-

vened. I am not going to use this argument on a party political basis. As it had not been during the 1964 election, the question of the marina became a vital issue in the 1966 General Election, held in March last year. My opponent and I took opposing sides in this matter. Our positions were made clear to the voters, and nobody had any doubt where we stood. I was in favour of the marina; my opponent was against it. We know the result of that election. I was elected.
The matter has had a thorough public airing. Here I want to pay tribute to the local Brighton Press. It has been more than generous—especially the Brighton Evening Argus—in upholding the traditions of the Press by giving more than a fair share of space to the public debate on this matter, both in articles and in their letters columns. Furthermore, all three local newspapers have come down firmly in favour of the scheme.
The Bill comes down to what Brighton is all about. The critics are few in number, but loud in voice, and they continually contradict each other in their criticisms of the marina. We hear about the loss of beaches at the same time as the critics go on record as approving a yachting harbour, yet each scheme involves the loss of beaches. We are told that the marina will adversely affect business in the town, yet all the businessmen's organisations and the local chamber of commerce and hotel organisations are fully in support of the marina. We are told that it is a planning blunder, yet it has been approved both by the Minister and by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
The question of excess sewage has also been raised—a vital problem in Brighton. Nobody has done more than I have to get Brighton to solve this problem, and even before the marina scheme was known the local authority had taken steps to give urgent attention to the sewage problem. This will be going ahead during the next two years.
Then we hear a lot about people being displaced from their homes in Riflebutt Road. I want to strike a serious note here, because this aspect of the problem gave me more concern than all the other aspects put together. I understand that about 38 people are affected by the compulsory purchase order, and they have a


right to be heard. Nobody should be lightly turned out of his home. But it should be placed on record that at my instigation the local authority has guaranteed to rehouse every displaced person, and the company will be more than generous in its terms of compensation. In my opinion, these people will get far more generous treatment from the company than they would if the corporation had had to apply district valuers' standards.
It should also be mentioned that not every person in Riflebutt Road is against being displaced, or against the marina being developed on the site proposed. The trouble is that the residents of Rifle-butt Road are being used as pawns by the marina critics at large. For the loss of beaches, the loss of houses and the loss of certain other amenities, not one critic has been concerned to apply the same argument to other developments in Brighton.
That is why I castigate them as hypocrites. Hundreds of people have been compulsorily removed from the West Street Site in Brighton, now being redeveloped, and the Brighton Skydeck Bill went through without a squeak or without any attempt at a blocking device from the three local M.P.s. That Bill, which will also involve the loss of beaches, raised not the slightest whimper from people who are now kicking up a row about the loss of beaches and the displacement of people on the marina site.
It is argued that the marina will mean increased traffic problems, but at the same time we are told that it will be a white elephant. How a development which will be a failure can produce extra traffic escapes my comprehension, but it shows up the inconsistency of the criticisms of the Bill. There would be increased traffic anyway, with or without the marina, and the Minister has insisted that the town council pays attention to this problem. It is a condition of his consent to the marina scheme. It should be placed on record, to be fair to Brighton Corporation, that in any case it has been employing traffic consultants for some time to work out Brighton's future traffic problems.
Taking all the arguments—admitting the genuine concern for the people of Rifle Butt Road—the criticisms do not

hold water, are not valid, and represent the last resort of those who would like to see Brighton stay a quiet backwater on the South Coast, thereby frustrating the will of the local people.
But I believe that they have reckoned without the will of the people of Brighton. I was born and raised there and I know the people; I am one of them. The Bill, granting commission and powers to the Marina Company, is about Brighton and its future, in which I have a tremendous faith. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Conservatives, or—I hope that this will not shock my hon. Friends—with capitalists, to see Brighton develop, if the alternative is to do nothing. As a Left-wing Socialist, I find it a little ironical that some of my hon. Friends apparently want to man the barriers of Socialism at the Brighton Marina, when they should be manning them in the House. That is where the basis of Socialism should start.
A prayer which is read before every Brighton Council meeting says at one point:
Grant us a vision of our town, fair as she should be.
I believe in that vision and I revel in the spirit of the town's history and its past. I like its reputation and am confident that it has a great future. I can see that vision now and I believe that it includes the Brighton Marina. No one, least of all the academic and intellectual "carpetbaggers", will spoil that vision. Brighton is about the future as well as the past, which is why I ask hon. Members not to block the passage of the Bill, because it will mean not a loss of Brighton's heritage but the creation of a heritage for future generations.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on his praise of Brighton and of that excellent newspaper the Evening Argus, which gives him his fair share of publicity, but I regret that he missed the three real points in the debate. The first is that the proposed yachting harbour will be a magnet to draw people away from Brighton, and thereby destroy its prosperity. The second


is that it is proposed to place the yachting harbour at the most dangerous beach along the Brighton foreshore. The third is that there are better alternatives for that harbour.
My hon. Friend said a great deal in praise of Brighton and he was right. He loves Brighton, he lives there, he is the Member of Parliament for Kemptown—and a very good Member he is. But he is misguided. He is like the gentleman who wrote to the paper the other day that this proposed marina will be "a shot in the arm" for Brighton. Certainly, it will be an injection, but an injection of a very unpleasant kind, which will do a great deal of damage to Brighton. It would be a kind of narcotic.
There are alternatives which my hon. Friend might have mentioned and which might have been selected for the Bill. The injection will be disastrous. It will not exhilarate Brighton, but will draw people away from the hotels, shops, and central prosperity of Brighton. Instead of doing Brighton good, it will do a great deal of harm. Worse still, it may be used as a precedent for other, similar, resorts.
I therefore oppose the Bill as a matter of national duty, public policy and human safety, in view of the dangerous beach to which it is proposed that these yachts should be enticed. I say frankly that I am in favour of yachting. I am in favour of seafaring and of yachting harbours. I might say that I am amphibious. I am very addicted to the sea.
I should like to see a yachting harbour for Brighton, but in the right place, under the right conditions, and under public ownership, management and control. This proposed harbour is none of these things. It is to be built in the wrong place, on a dangerous part of the coast, for private profit instead of public and under private control. It is to be built two miles from the centre of Brighton and will thereby attract visitors and customers away from the present prosperous centre of Brighton.
It will divert traffic from Brighton. It is actually proposed to build roads which will enable traffic to come from London and other small villages to other parts of the coast and so avoid Brighton. It will, indeed, be a diversion from Brighton. It is a long-range Texan shot which may

assassinate Brighton's "presidency" as a seaside resort.
I submit, therefore, that the Bill should be rejected as not within the rule laid down in Erskine May:
The promoters of a bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success and no one may complain of injury or urge any specific objection, yet, if Parliament apprehends that it will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected as if it were a public measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments not solicited by the parties.
No doubt the promoters of the Bill will have their own interests advanced, not the public interest. They will make profits for themselves rather than for the public.
But what about Brighton's hotels and shops, from which the visitors and customers will be diverted to this new township at Black Rock, two miles from Brighton's centre? Brighton will, therefore, be damaged by the new township; that is the essential feature of the Bill.
I submit that the Bill should be rejected because it comes within the rule which I have quoted—that is, because it will be hurtful to the community. I shall present these probable hurts not only on my own authority, but supported by independent authority which conflicts with the fanciful and imaginative picture published by the Bill's promoters, in locating a new township only two miles from Brighton to compete with and damage Brighton's hotels, shops, entertainments, industry and tourist trade, and I shall do it as a matter of public and national duty.
This Bill may be used as the thin end of the wedge, as a precedent to bring other beaches under private control for private profit. Local corporations and their constituents should watch with fear and horror the progress of this Bill—that is, if it gets any further. The Bill provides for a company to
… be authorised to construct the marina and the recreational, residential and other facilities and the road and harbour works described in this Act, to reclaim land from the sea and to acquire lands compulsorily …
As I have said, the scheme is explicitly designed to attract customers and visitors—indeed, the population generally—away from Brighton and thereby to do Brighton a great deal of harm. It will also do a great deal of damage to the residents of Kemptown, where it is proposed to build the new harbour. Some


of the residents there are to be expelled from their traditional residences, which they, their families and their forebears have occupied for generations.
A particularly disgusting feature of the use of the powers sought by the promoters of the Bill is mentioned shamelessly in Clause 15, under which it is proposed to acquire a burial ground, to dig up corpses and to pay a sum not exceeding £50 for each corpse and to apportion the £50 equally to a number of corpses that may be in the same grave.
I ask the House to take the view that this feature of the Bill is repugnant to common decency. It is a horrible and gruesome proposal, almost in keeping with that I have mentioned about dispossessing the residents of Kemptown from their ancestral homes.
I come to some more of the hurts which the Bill is designed to inflict on the residents of the area. The site of the proposed yacht harbour is all wrong. Brighton, as everyone knows, is a charming and successful seaside resort on a stretch of coast from east to west, with a beach which varies in steepness. A remarkable feature of the place is that the beach varies in steepness to such an extent that some parts of it are suitable for a yachting harbour while others are quite shallow. The part of the beach where it is proposed to build the new harbour is shallow and covered with chalk rocks. These rocks will have to be removed, but the sand beneath will still leave the beach shallow and yachtsmen have written to the local newspaper pointing out the dangers of this part of the coast to yachting.
At the west end there is a deep and ready-made harbour which could be used with safety by yachtsmen. At the east end it is rocky and there are dangerous currents—yet here it is proposed to build the new harbour at great expense and possibly causing grave danger. It is, therefore, a most unreasonable place at which to seek to build such a harbour.
I said that I would not rely on my own orbiter dicta, but would quote authorities to support my case. A distinguished yachtsman, Mr. A. Lloyd-Taylor, a resident of Brighton, emphasised the points I have been making in a recent letter to the local Press. I will

not quote the whole of his letter, but he stated:
As a sort of gilded Coney Island the place might be a grand success in the eyes of the more wealthy 'with-it' visitors, but I believe that for yachtsmen it would prove to be the whitest of white elephants, and could well be the cause of a considerable number of regrettable sailing fatalities.
The Bill proposes to authorise the building of a new township about two miles from Brighton, to build a marina club, restaurants, public houses, oceanarium—whatever that is—ice rinks, recreational facilities, shops, hotels, boatels—whatever they are—and residential units. It is proposed to build these in Kemptown as a counter-attraction to the attractions offered by Brighton, thereby to draw residents and visitors away from Brighton.
A very distinguished architect who is also a resident of Brighton stated in a letter in the local Press recently—although I will not detain the House by reading the whole of the letter, only the relevant part:
… the debate in the House of Commons on the Brighton Marina Bill should bring to a head the fundamental issue that concerns the supporters as well as the opponents of the idea of a yacht harbour: has the right basis been found for the combination of private enterprise and public control which appears to be the only way of creating a new and permanent asset to add to the many that Brighton already has.
The Bill in its present form does not suggest that this is so.
I am making these quotations because I wish to present a complete argument.
This is part of a letter from one of the professors at Sussex University, Professor Marcus Cunliffe. His remarks appeared in that great organ of public opinion The Times on 24th February last. He wrote:
1. Everyone in Brighton wants a boat harbour. Not everyone accepts that the only way to get one is to build a new township to sit behind it.
2. This Marina township is in the wrong place, aesthetically and commercially. It would tend to kill off central Brighton, where the hotels and entertainments are mainly and rightly concentrated. The present site is a gigantic cul de sac with only one means of traffic access.
3. Leasing off the foreshore creates a dangerous precedent for our whole coastline.
This is a matter of national importance. Private exploiters, for private profit, must not be allowed by Statute to ruin


Brighton in this way. They must not be allowed to endanger the lives of yachtsmen by enticing them to this rocky shore. Beaches should not be closed to the public, children and the girls from Roe-dean and other schools who go there to study marine life. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing. I assure them that girls from Roedean go there to study marine life in the pools; not the pools in which hon. Gentlemen opposite invest their money, but the pools in which marine life is to be found. Many girls from the local schools are sent there daily by their mistresses to study the marine life. If this kind of thing is to be allowed by Statute, I say with respect that it is contrary to the public policy.
On those grounds, and a great many others I could cite, I ask the House to refuse the Bill its Second Reading.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: It is usual in a Second Reading debate for the House to consider the principle of the Bill, but on this occasion there may be some case for distinguishing the objective of the Bill from some of the points of principle it raises. The objective of the Bill is one that this House may well support—the establishment of a marina which, as has been rightly pointed out already, is likely to fulfil a growing need as the affluent society increases and people find that the attractions of the sea are very much greater than those of overcrowded roads. At the same time, two points of principle arise which the House would be wise to consider. The large attendance at this debate brings out the fact that the points which we are considering are wider than the mere consideration of the Bill itself and go to the very root of many of our Parliamentary institutions.
The first point is whether it is right and proper that a private company should be given the power to set up a socially desirable but admittedly uneconomic project, and to finance it from other investment nearby which is recognised to be profitable. This is a principle that we should adopt with some trepidation. I could not be more in favour of the profit motive—I believe that the whole of our economic system and our welfare depends ultimately on the profit motive—but when the House is considering giving a

private company the right to set up an overall establishment of the kind proposed it is right that it should decide what balance it will strike between the two parts.
I have studied at some length the literature that has been provided on the subject. It goes in great details into the amenities that will be provided and into many of the arguments advanced for and against the marina. So far, I have been unable to find any estimate, first, of the rate of return on capital which is ex-amenities that are to be provided, and, secondly, the rate of return likely to be made on the associated enterprises, backing up the marina, which we are told will provide the bulk of the finance.
Before the Bill completes its passage through the House it would be helpful if those figures could be provided—the rate of return on capital on the amenity itself and the associated enterprises, and the division of capital between the two. In other words, how much is to be invested in the marina, and how much in the accommodation—the boatels, the ice-rink, and so on—that is to go behind it?

Mr. Donald Chapman: The figures are well-known—about £10 million on the shore development and about £3 million on the harbour works.

Mr. Higgins: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for that information. That provides the split of the capital, but there is also the question of the return. It is a question of the rate of return expected from harbour dues, and so on, and that expected on the flats, the ice-rinks and other items.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman can find the figures in the report of the hearings before the inspector. It is simply said in paragraph 149 that the return on the harbour mooring, as such, would be from 5 per cent. to 8·7 per cent., and that the on shore development was needed to give a reasonable return of 10 per cent.

Mr. Higgins: This is overall?

Mr. Chapman: Yes.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for that information, and I am sure that the House will bear it in mind.
Another point concerns compensation for those affected. Here I hope that when considering this kind of Bill the House will not necessarily apply the same kind of principles that would be relevant if a local authority or other governmental institution were promoting a Measure considered to be in the public interest. I have received representations from a number of people and, in particular, I have constituents who have property in the area which will be affected by the marina. I have therefore been in correspondence with the promoters of the Bill about the compensation that will be provided.
The point about compensation is covered by the memorandum sent out on behalf of the promoters of the Bill and which many hon. Members will have received today. The relevant point comes under the heading "Compulsory Acquisition of Land"—page 4 of the memorandum. The promoters point out that two points have been raised in connection with compensation.
The first point relates to the adequacy of the provisions in the Bill affording compensation to the owners or occupiers of lands sought to be acquired or adversely affected. In this respect, the Company would respectfully point out that the provisions included in the Bill for that purpose follow the usual form and afford the full provision for compensation which is applicable under the general law.
We must consider whether the compensation should not be paid immediately the Bill becomes law.
I understand from correspondence with the promoters that it is likely that the compulsory purchase order will take effect perhaps three years after the passing of the Bill. In that period, the people affected will be under considerable anxiety about how much is to be paid, when it will be paid, and so on. I gather that the promoters have gone to some length to facilitate the matter, and have offered to pay for the valuation of the property. However, I do not think this in itself to be sufficient, because there may well be a considerable time-lag during which my constituents, and no doubt others affected by the project, will be uncertain about what exactly is to happen.
The hon. Member for Brighton Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) suggested that about 38 dwellings were affected. If we take a

figure of £4,000 to £5,000 per dwelling, the amount involved—say £150,000/£200,000—is still only about 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. of the total cost of the work that will eventually be undertaken as the result of the Bill. It therefore seems not unreasonable, with the finances available for the whole of this very large project, that the promoters should pay out compensation as soon as they knew they have the approval of the House to go ahead. That is the main point I want to make.
Another point is whether compensation should be paid on the basis of the actual valuation of the property at the present market rate or whether these people should not also receive some compensation for the disturbance—the fact that they have to move, and so on. I believe this should be covered as well.
If an organisation is to be set up which is to be profit-making and people otherwise unconnected with it are to suffer loss or expenses, it is right and proper that full compensation should be provided by those expecting to make profits to those adversely affected by the enterprise. It is right and proper that the matter should be raised on Second Reading. I hope that the Select Committee will consider it and bear it in mind.
A minor point which must be considered is that it is proposed that the company should be given rather wide powers—for example, with regard to the collection of fees from those using the harbour. Not only is the company to be allowed to take ordinary action through the courts but I understand that a fine of about £50 on summary conviction could be imposed on those against whom the company made some charge.
I believe that the Instruction which we are debating with the Bill goes too far. I think that it is possible to cover the main points of anxiety that the House has in mind by considering them in Committee. We could then reconsider the amended Bill on Report, which is what I would propose that we should do before deciding whether to give it a Third Reading.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) put his case very well. Of course, he has an expert's


knowledge of the subject. I was interested in being tacitly described as an intellectual carpetbagger. Where he was describing a Left-wing one or a centre or Right-wing one, I do not know, and I do not know, either, whether I object to being called intellectual more than I object to being called a carpetbagger. I think that I do. But my hon. Friend is wrong in suggesting that those of us with reservations about the Bill are frivolous, or have no right to discuss the matter in some detail in the House.
What we are discussing is not confined entirely to Brighton. It is not a parochial matter. It is not even confined to Sussex. It involves a matter of great principle and the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) fairly stated what that principle is. It is the principle whether private individuals or private companies or private developers should be given power to enclose beaches which the public have used freely for very many years.

Mr. Higgins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. No doubt the House will consider the point he is making, but it is not the point I made. I said that we have to consider how much extension of planning permission one should allow in order to finance a project of this kind.

Mr. Davidson: I certainly would not wish to misinterpret the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but this is the point I am making. What we are also discussing is whether it is right for private individuals to have the right to apply compulsory purchase orders against people who have lived in their property for many years and against property which is of historical and architectural interest. It is surely right and proper that the House should discuss matters like that.
If the Bill passes in its present form—and I am not opposing it in principle—it will set a precedent which the House has a right at least to consider. The precedent is that, if this kind of development is permitted, it may well take place also in other resorts throughout the country. We should also consider what is the grand cause for which the public are being asked to some extent to give up their traditional rights.
If one strips away the veneer of this proposal, taking away the rather romantic

and glamorous name "marina", what does one find? It is that we are not dealing purely and simply with a yachting basin. If we were I would be wholeheartedly behind the scheme. What we are dealing with is an on-shore development which includes a casino, luxury restaurants, luxury hotels and luxury flats. Indeed, I have never seen the word "luxury" bandied about with such pride as in this brochure.
The House is entitled to know who the people are who would make use of these luxury developments, and whether all these luxurious amenities are really necessary in the cause of building a yachting basin. Nobody, as far as I know, disputes that a yachting basin is necessary for Brighton, nor, indeed, that throughout the country there is a severe shortage of sporting facilities.
But I would like to be reassured that the sort of yachtsmen who would be using this basin would be, if I may use the phrase, sportsmen in the best sense of the word—the amateur yachtsmen who yacht for pleasure at the weekend, for example. I am not and do not pretend to be an expert in yachting, but I gather from the criticism that many eminent yachtsmen have levelled at the scheme that there is some doubt at least whether this would be the right and proper place to build the basin and whether it would not be better for a smaller and municipally owned yachting basin to be built elsewhere in Brighton.
I am a little disturbed, also, by the mention of the word "casino" in this brochure. I have no moral objection to gambling of any sort whatever but at a time—

Mr. J. T. Price: I am rather surprised and a little pained by what my hon. Friend has just said. I thought that he was joining us on these benches as a Socialist Member of the House. As a Socialist I have the strongest moral objection to the kind of mass gambling which is going on, because it means trying to get something for nothing. As a Socialist, I object to it.

Mr. Davidson: We hear the words "Left-wing Socialism" bandied about a lot in this House. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants me to give a definition of it. If he does, I have no intention of doing so. I would not have thought


that being for or against gambling would have been part of Socialism one way or another. But I am certainly against the sort of mass gambling that is taking place at the moment and what worries me is that, if this sort of luxury, rather sleazy development takes place, we might well attract to Brighton and this marina the very sort of people we are trying to keep out of our casinos and gambling institutions in the country as a whole.
If there are any doubts about what sort of luxury development can lead to, one has only to look to the Bahamas, where considerable parts of the beaches were let out to private developers and where gambling became virtually the staple diet of the economy and where, this very moment, a committee of inquiry, headed by Scotland Yard detectives, is investigating alleged links with the Mafia.
I would have thought that before the House agreed to a development of this sort, with all its implications, it was only right and proper that it should be debated.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I speak on the Bill with some diffidence, because my constituency is not directly affected and the points of principle are not particularly burning issues for Socialist Members, but in the past I have often sailed yachts past Brighton, and I should like to put the point of view of the yachtsman as well as examine the Bill from other points of view.
Obviously, in spite of the reassurance which we have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) who moved the Second Reading so ably, the Bill will cause some loss of amenities. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) put the very reasonable view that the Bill would interfere with some of the amenities for the local population, including himself. But one can never achieve anything useful without causing some inconvenience, so the House must weigh the relative merits of the slight amount of inconvenience to a small number of people, who, I trust, will be adequately compensated, and the general usefulness of the whole scheme.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, yachting is now

becoming a very popular sport and is occupying the recreational time of probably more than a million people. One of the most outstanding aspects of yachting is the enormous shortage of facilities in the form of moorings, yacht harbours and hards on which to beach yachts, and anything which can improve available facilities to yachtsmen will have a tremendously beneficial effect on the sport, and so yachtsmen will be grateful for this development. There can be very little doubt about that, to judge from the correspondence in the newspapers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North suggested that there might be some danger to yachtsmen because this was a lee shore and a dangerous coast. That is a very good reason for having a port, because when one is sailing a yacht on a lee shore with a rising wind, and all kinds of dangers around, the very thing which one wants to do is to get into a port; and there would be a port on this very dangerous lee shore. All the arguments about local dangers are strong arguments in favour of having a port available to yachtsmen.
There is no doubt but that such a port would attract foreign yachtsmen. The French do not have anything equivalent on the south side of the Channel and there is nothing equivalent in Holland or in Belgium, so we would attract quite a few foreign yachts and tourists.

Mr. Chapman: What about Newhaven?

Mr. Cronin: I agree that Newhaven is a useful port, but I would not say that it was a particularly glamorous port. I cannot say that I have noticed many foreign yachtsmen fighting their way through the waves towards Newhaven, come what may.
Another important factor is that this scheme would have a tremendous tourist attraction. In this country we depend to a substantial extent on the tourist industry for helping towards our balance of payments. Without doubt, yacht marinas glamorise seaside resorts. Places like Monte Carlo, Deauville, Cannes, and Fort Lauderdale, across the Atlantic attract tourists because they have yacht harbours and yacht marinas. The same thing would happen in this case and would greatly increase the tourist attraction of Brighton. The House should


remember this, because all of our seaside resorts suffer from the deplorable annoyance of British weather and anything which counteracts that, even to a minor extent, should be encouraged by all of us.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that there was some doubt whether the House should give powers for a profitable enterprise to be set up with attached to it a comparatively smaller enterprise which was less profitable, but which would provide amenities. I take it that he has no objection to the setting-up of profitable enterprises per se. Surely it is even more desirable if large profitable enterprises are set up and, at the same time, produce some public amenity of an uneconomic nature. I should have thought that that was an argument in favour of the Bill.
The hon. Member also questioned the return on capital. That is very speculative, because we do not know what the return on capital will be. This is a purely private enterprise development and the return on capital may well be much less than 10 per cent. I shall be surprised if the profits on this outlay will be as much as has been suggested.

Mr. Austen Albu: Would not my hon. Friend agree that in those circumstances the whole thing might well become derelict?

Mr. Cronin: That was one of the things which I intended to mention later.

Mr. J. T. Price: That part of the Sussex coast has already suffered from the terrible example of the Peacehaven development which, because of unbridled speculation which never fructified, left a blot on the landscape for future generations to endure.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that, because I am sure that, whichever hon. Members consider the Bill, they will bear that carefully in mind to make sure that no such appalling happening occurs again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) raised the important question whether a public amenity, a public beach, should be enclosed for the purposes of private profit. Most of us must feel some doubts about that, but the whole thing must be assessed on its merits. I should have thought that

the numerous advantages of this proposition must outweigh that nevertheless important consideration which must be borne in mind. The danger of causing a precedent is obviously important, because every case like this must be considered on its merits.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington was somewhat too severe about the luxury aspects. If one adopts his principle, that would be good reason for refusing planning permission to every luxury hotel planned for London and likely to attract tourists. One can dwell on luxury too much. Cromwellian austerity is not practical in terms of economics.
Nevertheless, I should like some reassurance about certain aspects of the Bill. The first concerns the effect on neighbouring parts of the countryside. This township will have a population of about 20,000 and car parking for 3,600 cars and I cannot help feeling that there will be widespread and possibly prejudicial effects on the neighbouring countryside. I therefore think that the first proposed Instruction has great merit in dealing with that danger.
As for the second Instruction; it may well be helpful for Brighton to be a shareholder in this company, but hon. Members will agree that the actual power of a shareholder in any enterprise is very limited. I have some doubt whether Brighton should be a shareholder. The idea that Brighton should be a majority shareholder sounds to me a most hair-raising possibility from the point of view of the corporation. This, I would suggest, is a somewhat speculative enterprise, and to bring the ratepayers of Brighton into this speculative position would, I think, be most undesirable.
The third point on which I should like a reassurance is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), and that is the question of finance. The finance required will be of a most massive nature, a sum approaching £15 million. I think that the House does want to be sure that there is no danger of this scheme subsequently being abandoned through lack of finance. So I think it is of the utmost importance that the House should go very carefully into the question whether the finance will be available to see the enterprise through to the end.

Mr. Chapman: I think that to be fair to the promoters, as I am very anxious to be tonight, I ought to read just one sentence from a letter sent to me by the town clerk, who says that the corporation is negotiating with the developers a restriction which will ensure that
no work is to be commenced until the Corporation have been satisfied by the promoters that they will have adequate financial resources to secure the completion of the whole of the works in one continuous operation".
I think that, to be fair, that should go into the record.

Mr. Cronin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This goes a long way towards meeting my objection, but I still think, despite that reassurance, that the House should consider very carefully the financial aspects.
Having made those reservations, I should like simply to say that it seems to me that this Bill will be of enormous help to yachtsmen, who are deserving members of the population, and that this project will be a big tourist attraction. It will be a big help to Brighton and to our foreign trade through tourism, and I think, therefore, that it should have the full support of the House.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I speak with some diffidence on the Bill, being the Member for Harwich, on the east coast of England, but I join hands with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in opposing the Bill. I feel that I should declare a slight local interest in speaking on this matter. My uncle, Aurelian Ridsdale, was Member of Parliament for Brighton and was the only Liberal Member of Parliament Brighton has ever had.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: And probably the best.

Mr. Ridsdale: I was brought up in the neighbourhood of Kemptown and my sister has a house in Kemptown. And, like the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) I, too, am a keen sailor. I have sailed and boated along that part of the coast, and fished there as well.
I must say that while I welcome the fact that a harbour should be built somewhere along that coast I wonder whether the point chosen for this harbour is

exactly the right one. I know from experience how the south-wester blows very hard against the cliffs there, and I wonder whether the protection which an artificial harbour would give would be enough to protect the boats, especially in some of the gales in the winter, when they blow very hard in that neighbourhood. I think that there is a case for putting the harbour farther along to the west, or at the centre of the town, but certainly not in the place at present chosen.
I support the idea that certainly there is some need for a boat harbour on that part of the coast. Naturally, being the Member of Parliament for Harwich I am keen on making harbours and facilitating the sailors and their amenities, though, of course, I should like some of the money which is to be spent to be spent on the East Coast rather than the South Coast.
What concerns me is the building on the foreshore of ice rinks and bowling alleys and luxury hotels. I see that the estimated cost is over £12 million. The hon. Member for Loughborough was eloquent when he said that we should thus attract people from Deauville and people from the north coast of France, but I wonder whether these kinds of amenities will appeal to the French tourists. I think that if these facilities were built on the East Coast, in a very natural English atmosphere, they would undoubtedly come. But I am told that an ice rink and a bowling alley and a casino already exist, and that hundreds of luxury flats in Brighton are for sale or to let, and that the new Metropole skyscraper block remains almost empty.
In particular, as I am one who is always careful to take to task the Government for extravagance, or for not getting value for money in Government spending, I wonder whether, at this time, when our capital resources are scarce, it is wise to spend £12 million on development of a project of this nature. What is to be the return on the capital? Nobody has said whether it is a gross or a net return, but 10 per cent. gross is not very much to expect for this project, if it is something in the interests of the country.
I am sure that one should not embark on capital spending of this nature unless one can get a return of at least 10 per cent. net. If that were to be the return


and we could attract tourists by this project I would be in favour, but as it is I must say I find it very difficult to agree.
Surely, such big sums of money should be directed, if necessary, to non-luxury dwellings, to slum clearance, to hospitals and schools, the need for which is much more urgent at the moment than some of these projects which are being put up on the foreshore, or intended to be put up below the cliffs at Brighton. Or, better still, of course, as I have said, if it is intended to invest a capital of £12 million let us build some more marinas in other parts of the country. But why is this luxury place being put up at a time when our capital resources are very scarce?
It is for these reasons that, as I say, I am very glad to join hands with the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North in opposing the Bill, much as I would favour the building of a boat harbour at a reasonable price.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: First, I must apologise to the House for arriving a few minutes late, but, perhaps for the first time in their history, a train run by British Railways arrived late at a London station. However, the promoters of the Bill have been kind enough to write to me on the assumption that I am one of their enthusiastic supporters, and they sent me their very full case, so I think that even they would agree that I am conversant with all the arguments even though they may have sent me their case under a misapprehension. As I have just returned from a Hovercraft expedition round Cowes I think that it will be agreed that I have a reasonable interest in the subject, despite the fact that I missed the introduction of the case made by the hon. Member for Kemptown (Mr. Hobden).
I would say that it is quite clear that everyone is agreed on having a marina, and it seems to me that the only questions are whether we are in favour of it on this particular site and with all the corollaries which have been mentioned, and in favour of giving Parliamentary approval to its being financed in this manner.
I am not certain what the hon. Member implies by "Left-wing Socialists", but

I am an old-fashioned Lloyd George Radical and was brought up on the phrase, "God gave the land to the people". One thing about which I feel very strongly indeed is that all the foreshores of the country ought to be in public ownership. It is intolerable to go abroad and find people who are debarred from the foreshores of their country. I have a shore in my constituency where my constituents are charged for bringing their own deckchairs to sit on their own beach. I may be the only nationaliser left, but I should certainly like to see all the foreshores of the country brought immediately into public ownership.
I believe that to allow private enclosure of half a mile of beach and foreshore is retrogressive. It is going back to the medieval enclosures of the sixteenth century and is wholly wrong. I believe that before we make an exception to the rule we must be convinced that there are very strong reasons for doing so.
What is asked for? First, we are asked that powers of compulsory purchase of both land and property shall be granted. The promoters say that there is nothing new in this and that very often compulsory powers have been asked for. But that is an extremely disingenuous argment. Most of the powers asked for in Bills—I was brought up with briefs flowing in and out of the house because my father was at the Parliamentary Bar—are compulsory powers for public utilities concerned with such things as gas works, roads and water. I do not believe that acquisitions of this sort and powers of this nature are comparable.
Secondly, I understand that upwards of £1 million is to be spent on the roads. There was a suggestion at a Press conference that the Ministry of Transport would be asked to make a contribution. That may or may not be right. However, I should have thought that there were other roads with higher priority.
The ratepayers of Brighton will have to meet an increased rate demand of about £150,000–£200,000, and it will be four or five years before they get a genuine return on that. Although about £90,000 a year will be paid for 30 years by way of charges on the £1 million. the fact remains that in the initial period of development a large financial burden will rest on the Brighton ratepayers. I do


not know whether we shall be told by either of the Brighton Members of Parliament whether they welcome that. It may be that they do. That seems to be another consideration.
The third consideration is financial ability. An hon. Member has very properly drawn the attention of the House to the statement made by the town clerk. Possibly, that is not, therefore, as much for consideration as it was.
Certainly, we know that there will be very considerable pollution. In paragraph 5 of the letter of the 29th September, 1966, from the inspector, Mr. Knox, on behalf of the Minister there is an interesting passage. He wrote:
However, it was reasonable to expect that, in some conditions of tide and on-shore wind, pollution would occur on the popular bathing beaches immediately west of the proposed Marina and in some circumstances the amount … could be significant.
He went on:
The discharge of sewage by marine w.c.s involved maceration of solids, but such maceration would not reduce the pollution nor make it aesthetically acceptable.
I am not quite certain how sewage is made aesthetically acceptable. The letter went on:
However, the clearance of any deposited solid sewage, in common with any form of litter, must be a matter for the council who would, no doubt, face to the full their responsibilities in this respect.
I suggest that those who would face the sewage first would be swimmers and not the local council.
There has been the suggestion—the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) dealt with this is a very reasoned speech—that this would be a dangerous place for yachts. As the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) said, showing the wisdom that one would expect from a nephew of a former Liberal Member of this House, there would be a better case for siting it on a smaller scale nearer to the West Pier.
We have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to enclose a public beach so that a private firm may develop it for private profit. Should the firm be given not only powers of compulsory purchase but powers of fining which are extensive? Should it also be given power to build a complex of buildings which I should have thought were not

asked for or needed by yachtsmen? We should give the matter very careful thought before we pass a Bill which for the first time in the history of this House publicly encloses the foreshore of any part of our coastline. If any such development is really economically desirable it should be done by the municipality. Certainly it should not be done by granting a right of monopoly to a private firm for enclosing any part of our coastline.
I know the area. It is not the most aesthetically attractive, though it is rather more aesthetically acceptable than the treated sewage to which the Minister's minion referred. Whatever it is, it is a very bad precedent which comes at the time of Operation Neptune, which is seeking to save as much of our coastline as it can. Unless the subsequent speeches in the debate can convince me on a great many of these points, I shall object to the Bill and vote against it.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough in believing that the second Instruction is disastrous. It says that Brighton Corporation can take a share in the equity, which is right, but that if the scheme goes bust there is a contingent liability for it and the ratepayers to become majority shareholders.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is misreading the Instruction. It simply says that the corporation shall have the right, not the liability, to take a majority shareholding.

Mr. Thorpe: I entirely agree, but presumably the right would be exercised only in the event of the development being other than in accordance with the agreed plan at the inception of the work or if the consortium in question was in financial difficulties. It seems to me that these could be the only two occasions when this power might be operated. I should have thought that the last thing the ratepayers of Brighton want to do is to have a contingent possibility of having to become majority shareholders in what would be financially an enormously expensive concern. But it may well be that I have misinterpreted the point that the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
Nevertheless, I believe that this is not the sort of private enclosure of public property to which the House should begin to give its blessing.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I begin by explaining to the House what my credentials are for speaking about the Bill. I was born in Brighton, and I lived there till 1950, when I entered the House. At one stage, both my parents were members of Brighton Corporation and my father was once mayor of the town. Consequently, I know the area extremely well. When I was a boy I investigated the marine life in the pools at Black Rock, but I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I never saw a Roedean School girl there, and I do not think that one would these days, either.
The principal issues that we have to discuss are the issues which we must debate on any Second Reading, namely, what is it that the promoters of the Bill are requiring from the House, and, secondly, is it in the public interest generally that they should be given those powers? Inevitably, in any debate of this kind, there are a number of comparatively small issues which hon. Members rightly wish to raise. Often they do so simply to put down a marker for the Committee on the Bill to look at later. A great many of the points made tonight are of that character. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that there are two or three major issues to which the House must address its mind before deciding to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I come to the first point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, whether it is right in the public interest that public beaches should be used for private profit. One thing which has not been emphasised in any speech tonight, except in that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Mr. Hobden), is that throughout the whole of the story of this Bill the Brighton Corporation, the representatives of the inhabitants of the town, have been fully in support of it. It is quite clear that if the public interest, by which I mean, first of all, in the narrow sense, the interests of the inhabitants of Brighton is at stake, their own elected representatives in their own council are fully in agreement with it and approve of what the promoters of this Bill seek to do.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman laying it down as a principle

that this House should derogate its powers to Brighton Corporation? Because the corporation takes a certain line, is he saying that we should follow it slavishly?

Mr. Hay: I say nothing of the kind. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had waited for a few moments longer before jumping to his feet, he would have found that I was turning to the wider issue, because this is concerned not only with the interests of the town of Brighton but with the interests of the people of this country.
Here I strike a clear balance. On the one hand, there is the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, that God gave the land to the people, and all that, and that people should have access to the foreshore and there should be no impediment put upon them. On the other hand, there is the point which must not be overlooked, that what the promoters of the Bill seek to do is to provide a very substantial amenity for people who go there.
From the speeches made, for example, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), and many others who are concerned with the interests of yachtsmen, it is clear that there are an increasing number of people who want to take up this sport. If we give the Bill a Second Reading, we are going a step towards improving the amenities available to the public. We are not taking something away. We are not saying to the promoters that they may have this piece of foreshore and that they alone shall have access to it. We are saying that they shall have the foreshore and that upon it they shall create works, and do things which will improve the opportunities for leisure and pleasure of the people of the country and anyone who chooses to go there from other parts of the world. To me, the balance comes down in favour of the Bill on that point.

Mr. Peter Archer: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a new departure to propose to charge members of the public for access to the foreshore?

Mr. Hay: With respect I do not think so. I was about to come to the question whether there have been precedents. I agree that there may not have been a


precedent where the foreshore has been handed over to private developers to create a pleasure amenity. From the dozens of cases on the Statute Book, that pieces of foreshore have been handed over to private developers, to provide commercial amenities to provide—

Mr. Chapman: We have nationalised them.

Mr. Hay: Nationalisation may come before long. Perhaps in its wisdom Parliament nationalised these developments. Perhaps 50 years from now Parliament may wish to nationalise the Brighton Marina. Who knows?
I am simply on the point that there have not been precedents where the foreshore has been handed over to private enterprise to enable a particular amenity to be constructed. There are many cases of commercial development. If we were sitting in this House 100 years ago it would be a complete commonplace for us to have before us a Bill which sought to obtain special rights for the compulsory acquisition of land for enclosure, for the creation of, for example, the railways.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has raised a material point there, but I am not sure that it helps his argument. That was a period in our history, 1760 to 1832, when thousands of pieces of land in this country were taken over under the authority of a House of Commons which was packed with Tory landlords who brought Bills before the House to steal the land which belonged to the people as common land. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually most reasonable, should ever call that in aid of any cause he argued today. It was a disgraceful period in our history.

Mr. Hay: That may well be true. I am simply on the point that this is no novel proposition. It is said that it will be a dangerous precedent if we dare to allow the promoters to have their way, to have their Second Reading, and that we shall have done something which the House have never done before. This is the way in which it has been put in several speeches tonight.
I pass quickly from that to another aspect—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) need not laugh. I am moving on

quickly because I do not want to take too long. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kemptown, for example, wants to get back to his constituency, where he lives.
I pass quickly to another aspect of the matter, the question whether this is a suitable site. The House could debate for many hours which is and which is not a suitable site, but anyone who knows that area of Kemptown to the east of the highly developed area of Brighton knows that in no other place would it be possible reasonably to construct a marina of this kind. Anywhere else, one would have to take a large area of beach which is used for bathing. To my knowledge, no one in his right mind tries to bathe at the eastern end of the town by Black Rock, because, as has been said, the water there is comparatively shallow and, as the name indicates, there are many dangerous rocks. This is, therefore, the worst area of the foreshore, and, in my opinion, it is ideal for the construction of a facility such as a marina.
Next, it is said that the Bill will give rights of compulsory acquisition over all manner of people. Again, this is nothing new for the House of Commons. We have many Bills which confer powers of compulsory purchase upon all kinds of organisations. As I read the Bill and the documents supporting it, the number of people likely to be affected by compulsory purchase is very limited. The Bill provides the fullest possible opportunity for them to secure every iota of compensation to which they would be entitled.
I have not the slightest doubt, since this is a rather unusual kind of development, that the promoters, the company and the corporation, would do all that they possibly could to see that no sense of grievance existed among any of the people whose property might have compulsorily to be acquired. I have no doubt about it, and I say that, having a reputation in the House, I think, for having in the past been vigorous and active in the interests of people whose property was compulsorily acquired. I see no reason to worry in this case at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—urged that we should be satisfied that the promoters would have an adequate return


on their money lest the whole thing became a white elephant and collapsed, saddling the ratepayers of Britain with an enormous burden of expense. With respect, I regard that as pre-eminently a matter not for consideration by the House as a whole as a matter of principle, but for consideration by the Select Committee to which the Bill would be committed.
It will be for the members of the Committee to satisfy themselves that the Preamble to the Bill is well founded, and, in exercising that function, they will be obliged to go into the financial details which my hon. Friend has mentioned. I have no doubt that the financial situation will be completely protected. The extract from the letter which the hon. Member for Northfield was generous enough to read—I compliment him on doing so, knowing how determined an opponent of the Bill he is—should put any hon. Member's doubts at rest.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party spoke about pollution. This is a problem, but I remind the House of what the inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had to say about it. The right hon. Gentleman read out part of the passage, but did not read it all. Reading what the inspector said and what the Minister said in comment upon his report, I say that there need be no doubt that he places the problem, admittedly a dangerous and difficult one, squarely and fairly in the hands of the local corporation, which is, after all, the responsible public authority. If they have been working hand in hand with the promoters throughout the history of the Bill, they will surely have the common sense, if not a sense of public duty, to take particular care of that aspect.
As I look at this problem, I am drawn almost irresistibly to the conclusion that too many hon. Members have adopted an entirely unnecessarily censorious attitude to the Bill. What we in this House need to do more often is to try to do things which will make life happier for people. This is a Bill which is intended to improve and increase the opportunities for pleasure for many thousands of people.
Lots of rude things have been said about references to a casino, to a bowling

alley and to this and that; and the word "luxurious" has been thrown around as though it is an obscene term. People can use those words with the appropriate inflexion of voice to make it seem as though what is proposed is highly improper, but the fact is that the great majority of our fellow citizens dearly like to go to such places. Why, in heaven's name, should not the House of Commons give them the opportunity? I would give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.41 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I hope that I will not have to detain the House very long in making some general comments and merely trying to assist the House, because my right hon. Friend the Minister does not take any strong views one way or the other. This is a Private Bill and it is not for him to attempt to sway the House either way.
There is, however, the peculiarity about it that, as has been mentioned, the Bill is based on a planning decision made by my right hon. Friend, and in the decision letter which he issued he came to certain conclusions of fact, which the House may reject if it wishes, which have been mentioned during the debate. My right hon. Friend said that there was a need for more yacht moorings and that these would not be an economic proposition unless they were accompanied by other revenue producing developments. A lot of work has been put into choosing the right location to reduce to the minimum the harmful effects on other parts of the town.
My right hon. Friend accepts his inspector's opinion that the development as proposed is unlikely to be unduly obtrusive in the local scene. He accepts his inspector's conclusion that the marina is likely to be an asset to the town as a resort and of financial benefit to it. Accordingly, he has come to the conclusion that the objections to this proposal are not so substantial as to justify his withholding the outline permission which is sought. That, of course, is limited. An outline permission does not commit anyone on the details of the design. It certainly does not commit anyone on the details of financial control and the relationship between the private body and the public body.
My right hon. Friend does not take the view that there is anything wicked, un-socialist or in any way doctrinally objectionable about a partnership between a public authority and private enterprise. It is a hard fact in development, particularly in urban development, and my right hon. Friend has used his persuasive powers to encourage local authorities to recognise the need for a partnership, if only because of the blunt fact that they will not get the capital any other way. Certainly, in the public sector at the moment, we will not get the supply of capital that would be required to do something of the kind proposed in the Bill. Whether there should be a majority holding, or whether, as has been suggested, that would be dangerous is a matter which could be examined. It is basically a matter for negotiation and, if necessary, for examination in Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) denounced Clause 15. However, that is common form in Private Bills, and there is nothing shocking about it. I am not sure about Clause 47, which is the penalty Clause. There are penalty clauses for publicly controlled harbours, but whether such a clause is applied to any private harbour, I am not sure. However, that again is a matter about which evidence could be led by the promoters in Committee for the benefit of our colleagues who will have to discharge the onerous job of looking at the Bill and making up their own minds.

Mr. Archer: Is it not arguable that, in principle, a private company should be entitled to collect its civil debts by means of criminal proceedings?

Mr. MacColl: Certainly it is arguable, and, if I know anything about the Parliamentary Bar, it would be argued. I should have thought that a Select Committee of our colleagues was one of the most reliable tribunals to look at that sort of point. Such a body has that combination of judicial objectiveness and shrewd political awareness which is needed to advise us on what to do with the Bill. I think that it is the kind of point which ought to go to a Select Committee.
Criticisms have been made about parking arrangements. My right hon. Friend has given much thought to this point, and made it a condition of the planning approval that a very substantial parking provision should be made before the building is finally undertaken.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) both raised the matter of sewerage. It is said on behalf of my right hon. Friend in paragraph 8 of the decision letter:
… attention at the inquiry was drawn to the grossly over-loaded Portobello outfall sewer which would have to serve the on-shore development. Furthermore, there seems little doubt that there is a real risk of pollution from boats in the harbour which will be difficult to overcome. Both these problems are for the public health authority and the Minister expects them to take all possible steps to deal with them
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) and the hon. Member for Henley both made the point that that was already under active treatment. I hope that they are right.

Mr. Hay: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the Minister's hope will be disappointed?

Mr. MacColl: When I saw members of the Brighton Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board, over a year ago, I pleaded with them to take this matter very seriously, and I said that I thought that it was an urgent problem. With all the limited powers of persuasion at my command, I did my best. I succeeded in moving them from a position of reluctance to agreeing to the employment of consultants. The board engaged consultants, and it was hoped that the consulting engineers would report at the end of last year. It now appears that their report will not be forthcoming until the end of April of this year, and, of course, I do not know what they will recommend.
Although it is nothing to do with the promoters, but is essentially a matter which is the responsibility of the local authorities, we do not want an impressive facade of luxury restaurants and hotels, if the fundamental parts of environmental health and decent living are inadequate for them. It is more important for a local authority to get its sewers right than to


provide beautiful and impressive buildings with which to attract tourists.
Subject to that qualification, I think that the House ought to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that a Select Committee can look at all the points which have been raised and examine them in the light of evidence adduced before it, after which the House can look at the proposals again.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he deal with the point that I made about setting up a counter-attraction to Brighton, by within two miles of it, setting up this new township?

Mr. MacColl: It is part of Brighton. I can only give my right hon. Friend's view, after obtaining the advice of the inspector and after a long and intensive inquiry, that this was a good site and would not interfere with the amenities of the area.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I was naturally very interested in what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to suggest by way of guidance to the House on this difficult matter. I want to take up immediately the point he made about the nature of this enterprise. What the debate has revealed, in a way, is that there are basically two issues before us. One is whether this kind of enterprise is suitable to be carried out by a private company with monopoly powers and with widespread powers of compulsory acquisition. The second issue is whether there are any steps that we can take to make sure that the general amenities of the whole area are protected. Can we lay down instructions? Those are the issues that are raised.
I want to comment immediately on what my hon. Friend said on the first of those issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said. In basic sympathy and idealism, in every part of my being as a Socialist I have a great antipathy to the whole idea of enclosing a public foreshore for an enterprise of this kind. I can see the repercussions which it will have. I can see the next one that will come along. I can see that profitability having become the test, as it is in this Bill, other people

will say, "We can make a profit too, and we would like a slice of the foreshore on which to make a profit".
Once we start on this road, the difficulty will be that we will have established a very dangerous precedent. Therefore, if we are to allow this thing at all, we must hedge it with conditions which do not allow this precedent to be created. That is why I come to this point, which is in the second Instruction on the Order Paper, about the nature of the control of this development.
My hon. Friend said, and the House noted it, that his right hon. Friend did not object to the idea of a partnership in this matter between public and private enterprise. If I may put my own interpretation on that word, he was suggesting to the House that it should have some sympathy for the Instruction which I have put down. This is fundamental to the whole scheme, because we are kidding ourselves if we believe that this is a Brighton marina. It is not a Brighton marina. This is a wholesale town development project. It covers 106 acres, for a start. Admittedly most of it is sea, but I will come to the on-shore which covers 32 acres of land development, of town development.
I would like to see any other town saying to the House of Commons, "We have a project for the development of our town on this huge scale, with all the amenities inside it, and we are not pretending to the House that we would ever want any public ownership or public share of control". The House would always say, on town development of this magnitude, that there must be a public stake in it, and that there must be the answerability that a certain extent of public ownership can provide. This is why the Instruction to which the Leader of the Liberal Party took exception has been tabled. It is the one condition on which we can accept the enclosure of the public foreshore.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, because I am one of the uncommitted Members. What worries me most is that we should be enclosing the public foreshore and doing it for a purpose which in my experience is unique. What difference does it make whether this is done by a local authority under public


control, or by private enterprise, or by a combination of both? Surely this is enclosing the foreshore for a purpose which is unique, and is not in the same category, as was suggested from the benches opposite, as enclosing a public foreshore for the protection of essential commercial harbour works.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend must make up his mind. What one has to do is to make one's own assessment of the comparative good to the public of enclosing the foreshore under this scheme, or not enclosing it. In other words, are there distinct advantages for the public as a whole which will result from this scheme and thereby justify it? It is a matter about which my hon. Friend has to make up his mind. I do not think that my hon. Friend can do it from first principles. It is an assessment of the relative public good involved in the two approaches, but I agree with my hon. Friend, because it leads me to my next point, that if we had a go-ahead Brighton it would have done this job itself.
I do not want to be critical of Brighton. I live there, and I enjoy it. I love the town. It may be that Brighton can say that it is beyond its powers to persuade the ratepayers to do this. It may be open to Brighton to say that it is not experienced in business of this magnitude. I do not think that this is particularly true, but in any case it could say that it regards this as something in which it wants the help of private capital, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
The point at issue is that here we have Brighton Corporation saying that it cannot do this, that it never thought of it, that it is beyond its ability, that it wants some help from private enterprise to do it, and it believes that the public good will be helped by having this scheme, by enabling more people to enjoy themselves on this piece of coast after enclosure compared with before. This is the real issue before the House, and the Corporation is entitled to say that to the House.
What I am entitled to do, and I am trying to do it by way of this Instruction, is to say that we must strike a happy medium. If we are to give this first-ever power to private enterprise on this scale, we must first ensure that there is

public shareholding in it so that there is public answerability for what is going on there, and so that the town councillors can be told "You are in on this thing as shareholders. What are you doing about this and that? What are you doing about this repercussion or that defect?". We must have this public shareholding because of the size of the whole thing, and because of the principle of public ownership of the foreshore which is being breached.
Secondly, we must have this further power in the Instruction to provide a majority shareholding if—and this is a phrase which has happily been suppressed by the local Press and not mentioned tonight—the public interest so requires. This is not carte blanche to the Brighton Corporation. It is not a liability to take this over. It is a fair assessment of whether the public interest will be shared eventually by having this under majority shareholding. It is best to say so from the start and write it into the Bill so that we know where we are, and in the future if things go wrong the Corporation can step in and begin to put them right.
Equally, it is important for Brighton to have a shareholding in this in case it is a success, because if it is, and I hope that it will be, and it provides a great deal of fun and enjoyment for many thousands of people, it may well be that inside this set up we will want things done not only on the basis of private profit. If, for example, it becomes necessary, and to the public advantage, to lay out more gardens inside the marina, to to provide other non-profit-making facilities inside it, I cannot see the Marina Company doing it. It is interested in profit. Nobody would be able to force the company to do it. In its present form the Bill provides only negative planning powers. If we want eventually to make this marina into a considered extension of Brighton, instead of latching on a piece of commercial development, we may need public control—a shareholding of 51 per cent., or whatever else it may be—so that the non-profit-making aspects can be developed inside the scheme.
That is why this is a double-barrelled Instruction. The first principle is that there should be some public shareholding. It is right, for the future, that if the council requires it it should have a majority


shareholding. I think that is reasonable. I hope that I have removed many of the doubts in the mind of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the hon. Member and I should like to be able to support him, because I agree with him on the question of answerability. But if he says that Brighton might not be able to finance this project on its own, how can it buy 51 per cent. of the equity which, on valuation, must run into several millions of £s? Secondly, in fairness to the promoters, is it a very satisfactory position for them if they know that should the scheme be profitable Brighton may wish to take it over? That would be a very hazardous way for anybody to invest money in an enterprise of this sort.

Mr. Chapman: In the future there will be an established scheme. There will be equity to buy. There will be a record of profitability to consider and there will be an asset to value. At that point, with the project established for good or ill, running well or badly, the situation will be reflected in the capital value of the enterprise, and at any time in the future, as in the case of any other nationalisation project, there will be a fair price on valuation for a majority of the equity. I do not see that Brighton would have any difficulty about raising money then, because there would be an established asset to value.
Moreover, if a scheme of this kind becomes established, it will not be so much a question of raising money; it will be a question of the expertise involved in creating the marina in the first place. That will be more difficult than the question of raising money in the future. I hope that that reassures the right hon. hon. Gentleman on his first point. I have forgotten his second point.

Mr. Thorpe: I would not grant these powers, but having given them, surely we cannot then say, "We shall give these powers to you, and if you make a success of the project we warn you that we shall probably take it over."

Mr. Chapman: It will not be a question of warning the company. We shall be saying, "Because of the principle involved you can either undertake this project in partnership with public enterprise or not at all." It is a matter of

principle. We shall say, "From the start, you must accept this as the minimum basis on which we can allow the foreshore to be enclosed." It would be on that basis that private enterprise comes in. There would be no warning in advance.
Private enterprise would come in or would not come in on that understanding. If it wants to come in and help to provide money to make the project a success it will know from the start, without being hoodwinked and without being given a false prospectus, that we are saying, "This is the minimum condition on which you can have all these powers." I do not see why the company cannot be left to make up its own mind whether or not to come in.

Mr. Hay: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that to put the matter on that basis makes it very improbable that it will ever get off the ground in the first place? Is this Instruction not really an attempt to kill the Bill and the project by stealth?

Mr. Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman should apply to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who made it clear that the Government think that there is no reason why this should not be a partnership between public and private enterprise. I am simply saying that we should write into the Bill, in case of eventualities, the prospect that we should need a good deal of public enterprise in something like this at a later date.
I come now to the other Instruction with which I am associated, about the environmental effect. In this respect, I am extremely disappointed with Brighton Corporation. It is largely a good corporation which has a beautiful town, with some of the greatest attraction in the country, to preserve. But to present something like this to Parliament, with no detail of the environmental planning of the area on to which it will be latched—this is just being tacked on to the end of Brighton in the hope that nothing will go wrong with the environment—is deplorable. We in the House of Commons are worth better consideration than that.
Consider the size and the impact of this project. At any one time, there will be 20,000 people in it. They are making provision for 8,000 people to sleep on


boats, and there are also over 200 flats and houses and all the other ancillary development, which is enormous. There will be car parking for 3,600 cars. This is all below a level of cliff.
All we have had from Brighton Corporation—it is not unfair to say this—is an assurance that the gyratory system of entry roads will be adequately planned, but with a very poor approach road around the back of Brighton which is no improvement at all—I think that it is derisory—and a statement which was wrung out of the town by the opposition which was clearly developing here, when the chairman of the planning committee, in a public statement to a Press conference, said that if the effect was to increase the parking in Kemptown's beautiful squares, the corporation would use its parking regulations.
Brighton is worth something more than that sort of approach. If there is to be a magnet on this scale, all the acreage immediately surrounding it must be planned almost afresh. That does not mean buying up everything and knocking it down but it means having a master plan for the effects on that end of Brighton.
Overlooking this marina, which will be an enormous town development, there is a long area of cliff with a road behind That road is already impassable on the days when there is any sunshine and everybody flocks to Brighton. I have seen no plans for that piece of road to show the extent to which the through traffic can be managed and the parking and viewing of this thing, which will go on on a huge scale, can be coped with. People will flock in their thousands. This will be an enormous magnet. They will want to park and walk along the cliffs and look down on this development.
It should be—I hope that it will, if it is proceeded with—one of the marvels of modern development, but the price of that for Brighton is to do it properly and not just latch it on the end and leave these other matters to chance. The cliff area and the roads along the cliff need planning. The whole of the approach system, in a much wider context than has ever been revealed to the House, needs planning.
As for Kemptown, to tell me that a project of this size can be left in the hope

that a few parking restrictions will preserve the beautiful squares is derisory, to say the least. If one is to extend this town on such a scale, the whole road system of the approach to the Marina must be sub-divided into through, main and subsidiary roads for the immediate residents of the areas which one wishes to preserve. If Kemptown's beautiful Regency squares are to be preserved, this must be done. The trouble is that this whole project, enormous as it is, is being treated as if it were chicken-feed. It is a huge development which needs the environmental replanning and proper consideration which it warrants.
I come to the second Instruction on the Order Paper, which is designed to point out that the Committee which is to examine the Bill must be satisfied that adequate plans have been produced for this purpose. It must call in Brighton Corporation and say, "This is a huge town development. What are you doing about it? What are you doing about the area onto which you are tacking this development?" The Committee must be satisfied that it is being done on the right scale, with the right amount of expenditure and with the right safeguards for the residential areas, areas of amenity and taking into account the natural beauty of the place.
I hope that the House decides, in considering whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading, that these matters are of great importance. I will be largely influenced by what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) says at the end of the debate about whether the two Instructions are acceptable. If they are not acceptable, then I will vote against the Bill because they represent the minimum on which the project can be run properly, can be planned properly and can become an asset to Brighton and the country as a whole.
The best evidence I can call in aid—in addition to my own eloquence, if I can call it such—is a letter which Lord Holford wrote to The Times. He made it clear that he did not support the Bill as drafted. In a covering note to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), Lord Holford said:
… but I am not supporting the Bill and I have written the enclosed letter to The Times which explains my reasons.


Lord Holford, who is acknowledged to be one of our best town-planners, wrote to The Times:
First of all I would only like to see the Bill passed with considerable amendment.
Among the amendments, he wanted
… safeguards against a disproportionate size, damage to Kemptown, especially overflow parking, and the extension of non-marine development and only compulsory purchase after clear statements and designs have been prepared to make the case for it in the public interest.
That summarises the first Instruction on the Order Paper. Lord Holford went on—and I assure the House that there was no collusion here; as far as I know, he wrote that letter without communicating with any hon. Members who have Instructions on the Order Paper:
I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading, but it brings us up against this fundamental issue: has the right basis been found for the combination of private enterprise and public control which appears to be the only way of creating a new and permanent asset to add to the many which Brighton already has? The Bill in its present form does not suggest that this is so.
Lord Holford there put the case in a nutshell for the second Instruction—that the right balance between private enterprise and public control has not been found in the Bill as drafted.
I hope that hon. Members will join with me in being largely influenced in how they vote tonight by whether the Instructions are adopted. Without them, the Bill would be utterly intolerable. If the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will say that he is willing to advise the House to accept these Instructions without Division? I shall be content to let the Bill have its Second Reading. Let us not have any prevarication. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman necessarily wishes that. I realise that he cannot entirely speak for his own home town, but if he can give the House a blunt recommendation that these Instructions should be carried, I would say that we should let the Bill have its Second Reading.
This is an imaginative project. Let all praise be given to Mr. Cohen and the other gentlemen who first thought it up. It could be a great asset to Brighton. On the other hand, without public control, without check on environmental effects on this scale, it could be a blight on Brighton and on Southern England.

For these reasons, I hope that the House will support the two Instructions.

9.16 p.m.

Sir William Teeling: I must make it quite clear that although the Motion for Second Reading has been moved by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) and I am now winding up from this side, this is a Private Bill. It is necessarily brought up by us, so we cannot say definitely one way or the other what will eventually be acceptable either to the corporation or to the promoters.
I am taking an active part in this matter because as far back as 1943 I was Member of Parliament for this area, stretching right down through Hove to Shoreham. In those days, the area was a two-Member seat—such seats have now ceased to exist—and I continued to cover all that Kemptown area until 1950. After that, the place was divided into three seats and the hon. Member opposite is now Member for the Kemptown division. If I may say so, he has moved the Second Reading extremely well.
For ages there has been an intense desire and keenness among the people of that area for the development of yachting. Only a few years ago the country had only about 100,000 yachtsmen. There are now about 500,000, and the majority of them come from the south-east of England. They are very enthusiastic, and their numbers are growing. But they all say that going along the coast from Shore-ham right through to Newhaven and beyond is very dull. They are all anxious to have a marina somewhere in the Brighton area.
I gather that Mr. Cohen and others suddenly got the idea that it might be possible to develop a harbour and marina round about Brighton. Marinas are also developing in many other parts of Europe—Malta and Cannes have already been mentioned—and I believe that such a project would be immensely advantageous for the area.
The next thing needed was to find the money for the project. Marinas are things which, if they are to be as big as they would have to be, will need a considerable amount of private enterprise in them. The more I have listened to speeches tonight, the more I have been reminded of events of the last 10 years


when I have been one of the chairmen of the Channel Tunnel Committee in this House. The same sort of arguments are constantly being used, but, finally, the Government of the day have decided that the project involved has been too big to be dealt with alone by public funds and must include a considerable amount of private enterprise.
On this basis, Mr. Cohen and various others got together and, I understand, got underwritten a very good and big scheme. Brighton Council began to take a considerable interest—bit by bit, more and more of an interest. Bit by bit, it decided and promised to do more and more to help it along. Thus, last year, it decided to hold a public inquiry into the whole subject. The council itself, by a vast majority, passed the necessary resolutions to back and support the enterprise.
The inquiry lasted no less than nine days. People representing almost every idea that has been brought forward during this debate took part. They either gave evidence or sent others so to do. The Regency Society and other organisations put up money to have people representing them and putting their case forward. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, his right hon. Friend finally decided that the scheme should be allowed to proceed.
But because certain amounts of Crown areas are, I gather, on this coast, the matter has had to be brought here for a debate. Then the Bill goes, or should go if it gets through the Second Reading, into Committee, and I should have thought that, like all other Bills going into Committee, that is the place where many of the details mentioned tonight should be dealt with. There will be plenty of opportunities then, including an opportunity to discuss the matter with the council and with the promoters.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is giving an interesting historical survey of what led up to the Bill. Will he tell us why the harbour at Shoreham was neglected? It is a harbour that is quite ready for the accommodation of yachts without anything like the great expenditure that would be involved in making a new harbour on the rocks at Black Rock.

Sir W. Teeling: One reason is that Shoreham does not happen to be as much in Brighton as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think. Nor has he been quite clear in explaining that even Kemptown, where he lives, is part of Brighton. He will keep on saying that it is two miles from Brighton. I used to live in Kemptown and I never felt that I was two miles from Brighton. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants more historical background, the interesting thing is that a number of hon. Members from other areas of the country have come to live in Brighton—or Kemptown, whichever the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to call it.
It seems to me rather sad, or amusing, however one looks at it, that I, born in Dublin, where the hon. and learned Gentleman was also born, came to Brighton via Birmingham and standing for Parliament in West Ham and that, since then, hon. Members for West Ham and Birmingham seats have followed me to Brighton and are taking part in the argument about this project. Last, but not least, the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who also started in Dublin, has come round via Aberdeen to settle on the front at Brighton.
I fully appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just moved in to a block of flats which would be right on top of where all this would happen. It may well not be very pleasant for him, but other hon. Members have gone through their troubles, some with having the Metropole built over their heads and others moving into Lewes Crescent and Rottingdean, and so on, and they undoubtedly also are feeling nervous about the future. However, I would be inclined to say that they need have no worries whatever about their own future amenities.
Incidentally, I can also say, as the Member for the other half of Brighton, that even although it is two miles from the centre to Kemptown, the people in Kemptown have the same sort of ideas and go to the same public houses and the same luxury hotels as those in the rest of the town.
I have been asked by the fishermen of Brighton to say that they are unanimously in favour of this development. I can


reveal another secret. The hon. Member for Kemptown knows full well that the Conservative candidate at the last General Election came out against the marina and that the fishermen, who were all very good Conservatives, voted the other way and just about made the difference which permitted the hon. Member for Kemptown to win the seat.
Behind us we have not only the fishermen, but all the organisations in the town and many other bodies, including the business community. I should have thought that with the elected representatives of the borough almost unanimously on our side, and almost all the leading business men and all the entertainments people and all the fishermen and all the people connected with the front, we would have had enough support to satisfy the House.
The only people not supporting us are a few well-to-do people living in certain streets, and only certain streets, in the districts roundabout. They are very worried that they will lose their amenities. I do not think that they will. I lived in Lewes Crescent and in Royal Crescent for a long time, and I am perfectly certain that the people in those streets will not lose their amenities.
One of the things which the council has promised is that there will be nothing above cliff height. That means that there will be no buildings cutting off these people from the sea. I remember that Lord Holford once wrote that when he came to settle in Kemptown, on the coast, he thought that he would not see anything except the sea and that it never dawned on him that any building would go up between him and the sea. This project will not. It has been moved to the cliff end, where it cannot be seen at all.
Not very long ago, I was in Port of Spain, Trinidad, where it was desired to put up a Hilton Hotel, which would normally be a skyscraper building. However, the hotel owners were told that they could only build downwards, from the cliff. That they have done, making it very beautiful, and the hotel can be seen at night from the sea, but it does not come above cliff height and it is as

ideally organised as would be the project in Brighton.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) let me know to which hon. Member he is giving way?

Sir W. Teeling: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover).

Sir Douglas Glover: Does my hon. Friend mean that Ziggurat Flats will be below or above the cliff line?

Sir W. Teeling: There will be nothing above the cliff line.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One intervention at a time.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir William Teeling.

Sir W. Teeling: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) will want to try to intervene again.
I will quickly go through some of the questions which have been raised and try to answer them.

Sir Charles Taylor: My hon. Friend did not reply to the questions put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about Shoreham. To begin with, the entrance to Shoreham Harbour is a bar, not the sort of bar which the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: An intervention must be an intervention and not a speech.

It being half past Nine o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)

Question again proposed, That "now" stand part of the Question.

Mr. Speaker: Now the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) may make his brief intervention.

Sir C. Taylor: Secondly, because of the power station there, which pumps up a lot of hot water, the water in Shoreham Harbour is full of worm, which is damaging to wooden sailing vessels.

Sir. W. Teeling: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North is now satisfied.
To answer some of the things of which he was critical, one of them waste that this was a dangerous part of the town. Well, it is no more dangerous than any other part. All this area can be very rough in winter. We all know that, and everybody's eyes have been open to that all along.
Another thing he was worried about was the fact that graves were to be removed. It is quite true that there is a Quaker graveyard in the Riflebutt Road area. The corporation has promised to remove it completely and to replace the remains of the people in another cemetery at some reasonable distance. This sort of thing happens all over the country now.
The point was raised by two or three hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), about profitability and what amount of profit the corporation would get out of it. The answer is, 25 per cent., it has now been decided, of profit will go to the corporation, after, I think, about the first 10 per cent., and that will enable the corporation, it feels, to benefit the rates by something like £200,000 a year, and that, in itself, to my mind, is the equivalent of an investment.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) wanted to know why places like Riflebutt Road were being removed, and he referred to them as though they were attractive and wonderful spots. I can assure the House that Riflebutt Road is anything but an attractive spot, and as for the gasworks at the end of it—well, it depends what one thinks of gasworks.
As regards luxuries, the fishermen, as I have said, are all very keen about them. Of course, there will be luxury hotels. There must be. How else can we develop this area, unless we tax the ratepayers an impossible amount?
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) talked about £12 million as the all-in cost. Does he realise, do all hon. Members realise, that it will take at least 10 years before the whole thing is through? For the first four years there will be practically nothing noticeable happening at all; during the next six years, yes; and it will be during all that time that we shall be planning the new roads and trying to develop new approaches to Brighton. We have not only at Brighton but at Shoreham for a long time discussed roads, and the possibility of new roads round Brighton to keep traffic out of Brighton, and this will be added on to the plans and schemes being worked out now by the corporation.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen that Brighton Council is most anxious that this Bill should go through. The council is most willing to co-operate with everybody. I do not think that it is really essential to have such tight provisions and directions as are contained in these Instructions which are on the Order Paper. They have been very well aired tonight; everybody knows what is wanted, including the hon. and learned Member himself. These matters can be considered in Committee if we have the Second Reading tonight. I have little doubt that hon. Members will eventually be completely satisfied, and I will do my level best to help to satisfy them for that matter.

Mr. Chapman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if the House negatives the Instructions the Committee will be under no obligation to take any notice of them?

Sir W. Teeling: There is possibly no need to bring up the Instructions if we just have a Second Reading. Everybody will know about them, and everybody is extremely keen to do what they can to help.

Mr. Chapman: Give an assurance.

Sir W. Teeling: How can I give an assurance when it is not my company? Nor is it the corporation's company. The


corporation has made every promise that it can. In many ways it will be responsible for practically everything that is done. It will get 25 per cent, of the profitability when the scheme develops, and that is quite a bit—equivalent to having quite a number of shares.
I think that hon. Members should give the Bill a Second Reading, as has been requested by practically the whole of the Borough of Brighton and by Members of Parliament from surrounding constituencies—Hastings, Eastbourne, Hove, Chichester and East Grinstead. Practically the whole of Sussex wants it. Why should anybody want to stop us? If a big principle is involved, as has been suggested, Bills can be brought in for other areas if they want to do this. In the meantime, the Bill before us can be well thought out during the Committee stage.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I venture for a few moments to explain how and why I shall vote. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) is aware, I am a Brighton addict. I have paid visits to Brighton, regular and often, short and long, for many years since my childhood—before the hon. Member was born. I know the coast eastwards to Dover and westwards to Newhaven and have walked the country back as far as Lewes, Chelwood Gate and Forest Row.
I believe that, whether or not I still want to go there, I am now compelled to go there by the fact that Brighton is one of only three seaside resorts that can accommodate the annual conference of the Labour Party. One thing about which I feel quite certain is that if the plan goes through I shall never of my free volition want to go to Brighton again. I am profoundly doubtful whether the theatrical attractions of the Labour Party conferences will take me there again.
1 believe that the same would be true of many of the foreign visitors who go to Brighton now. I have an American friend who had three days in Britain this year. He planned one day in Oxford and one in Brighton. He wanted to see the Georgian front and squares, the Pavilion and all the other treasures of the past. If this monstrous £15 million scheme goes through, with its casino and all the rest,

I believe that a precious national heritage will be destroyed.
I venture one word about yachtsmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin) spoke with his usual persuasive skill. He wants more facilities for yachtsmen. So do I—more harbours, more places where they can go when the are overtaken by foul weather. I share the view of my hon. Friends who think that it is most unfortunate—I will not say a scandal—that the Minister who is responsible for sport has not been given more money in the Estimates this year to provide just such facilities as these.
I am all for sporting facilities of every kind. I have never sailed in the English Channel. My yachting experience is confined to the Canadian Great Lakes and to the Thames Estuary. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) gave the right answer. This site is not the right place for a yachting refuge. Let there be such a refuge certainly, and let it be at Brighton, but let it be for the main purpose proposed in the Bill. People have spoken about the precedent which the Bill might create. It is true to say that the very company promoting the Bill is inciting other seaside resorts to put up similar schemes. I have been told this, and I believe it to be true.
I end my brief intervention, Mr. Speaker, with thanks to you, by saying that I believe that far too much of our coastline for far too many years has been "peace-havened" into unplanned squalor. If the Bill is passed it will be a giant stride along the road upon which we have already travelled too far. I shall vote against the Bill and I most ardently hope that it will fail.

9.41 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I do not want to detain the House for long and, if it had not been for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), I would not have intervened at all. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to this. I am not a Member for Brighton; I come from a long way from Brighton, but if one looks at the growth of the ordinary amenities, and the activities of the population of the country, this sort of activity is an absolute necessity if people are to enjoy themselves in future.
I have looked at this plan of the operation, and although I might not particularly like it—I would like to live on an unspoiled piece of coastline—it seems to be something which is inevitable if people are to have the facilities which they desire.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches and I think that the House is anxious to come to a decision.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the picture at which he is looking is pure fiction? It is fantastic imagination, and is not really a plan of the proposed harbour.

Sir D. Glover: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Member has intervened, because the other thing that I would like to say is that we in this House are returned to represent our constituents. The one thing that I deplore about this debate is the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), and various other hon. Members who have no personal constituency interests in this matter, have used their own private interests to try to stop this Bill receiving a Second Reading, purely for their own—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw. He cannot charge

hon. Members with taking a point of view in a debate because of their private interests.

Sir D. Glover: I willingly accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw. I would ask the hon. Members to tell us what other reason they have for taking the attitude that they have—

Mr. Chapman: Absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is making exactly the same offensive point in an indirect way. He must withdraw.

Sir D. Glover: I willingly withdraw completely. I support the activities of the Minister responsible for sport, who has taken a very imaginative attitude to the development of sporting activities in this country. We have to face the fact that we are living in a changing society, and that many things will happen which will not be to the liking of conservative people. More and more people will want to take part in sporting and social activities, and they will inevitably need more land and more space than they have had hitherto. In this proposal, the Brighton Corporation has provided all the safeguards one could reasonably require. I hope that the House will look to the future and give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 42.

Division No. 290.]
AYES
19.45 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Loughlin, Charles


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, W. H.


Bidwell, Sydney
Good hew, Victor
Luard, Evan


Bishop, E. S.
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Blackburn, F.
Grant, Anthony
McCann, John


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacColl, James


Booth, Albert
Hay, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazell, Bert
Maddan, Martin


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Mawby, Ray


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunt, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Monro, Hector


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Murton, Oscar


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jeger, George (Goole)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon


Doughty, Charles
Jopling, Michael
O'Malley, Brian


Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank
Onslow, Cranley


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Farr, John
Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Fisher, Nigel
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pardoe, John




Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Webster, David


Perry. Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Reynolds, G. W.
Temple, John M.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick
Yates, Victor


Smith, John
Ward, Dame Irene



Snow, Julian
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Dennis Hobden and




Sir William Teeling.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roebuck, Roy


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Coleman, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Carmock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Moonman, Eric
Thorpe, Jeremy


Driberg, Tom
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence



Hooson, Emlyn
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howie, W.
Randall, Harry
Mr. Hector Hughes and




Mr. Arthur Davidson.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed to leave out all provisions for compulsory acquisition of lands and easements until the Corporation

of Brighton has produced to the Committee adequate plans for the areas directly or indirectly affected by the proposed township, so as to preserve their natural and architectural amenities.—[Mr. Chapman.]

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 77.

Division No. 291.]
AYES
[9.54 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Hooson, Emlyn
Roebuck, Roy


Archer, Peter
Howie, W.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Cronin, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wellbeloved, James


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
McBride, Neil
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ellis, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morrison, John (Aberavon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)



Galpern, Sir Myer
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Donald Chapman and


Hazell, Bert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Mr. Arthur Davidson.


Hooley, Frank
Randall, Harry





NOES


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
MacColl, James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hay, John
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Bidwell, Sydney
Higgins, Terence L.
Mawby, Ray


Blackburn, F.
Hill, J. E. B.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John
Monro, Hector


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Murton, Oscar


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jeger, George (Goole)
Onslow, Cranley


Doig, Peter
Jopling, Michael
Orme, Stanley


Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Pardoe, John


Fisher, Nigel
Lawson, George
Peel, John


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Reynolds, G. W.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Loveys, W. H.
Sinclair, Sir George




Smith, John
Wall, Patrick
Yates, Victor


Snow, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Dennis Hobden and


Temple, John M.
Winnick, David
Sir William Teeling.

Motion made, and Question put,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed that before finding the preamble of the Bill proved they satisfy themselves that the Corporation of Brighton has become a shareholder in the company promoting the project, and has

acquired the right (if it believes the public interest so requires) to become majority shareholder at any future date.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 68.

Division No. 292.]
AYES
[10.3 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Hoy, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Archer, Peter
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Booth, Albert
Judd, Frank
Randall, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cronin, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ellis, John
Luard, Evan
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, Neil
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hannan, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooley, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Donald Chapman and


Hooson, Emlyn
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr. Arthur Davidson.


Howle, W.
Orme, Stanley





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hay, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John


Blaker, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunt, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire,, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Smith, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Snow, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Doig, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Errington, Sir Erie
Lawson, George
Thorpe, Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Loveys, W. H.
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Mac Arthur, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel
MacColl, James
Webster, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mawby, Ray
Yates, Victor


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Dennis Hobden and




Sir William Teeling.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put pursuant to Order [25th April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill exempting a person convicted of an offence under section 64(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (contravention of construction and use regulations) from consequences of the conviction.—[Mr. John Morris]

ARMED FORCES (BOYS' SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

10.15 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I want to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend who will be replying to the Adjournment debate for allowing the few extra moments that I need to deal with the matter in hand. The object of raising it is to draw the attention of the House to the way in which young men are recruited into the Armed Forces, the means whereby they are kept there, and the difficulties that are placed in the way of obtaining their release when they want it. I am not trying to say that the overwhelming majority of young men who enter the Armed Forces at an early age are necessarily unhappy or dissatisfied, but I want to draw attention to the difficulties of the large number who, after a few months or a year or more, find that they have made a mistake and wish to obtain their release.
Any of us who have been involved in this matter in the last few months are indebted to the National Council for Civil Liberties for the document which it produced. I know that my hon. Friend has a copy and no doubt will be referring to it in his reply. I have no time to deal with the individual cases raised in the document nor to refer to those which have come to the notice of hon. Members, but it is clear that, although it did not become apparent until the last few months, we are retaining in the Armed Forces some young men who entered at the early age of 15½ or a little later and are now bound to contracts of 9, 10 or 12 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), when Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, told me last August, when I raised the problem of boys' service not counting against men's service and the misunderstanding of these young men when they entered the Forces, that he could see no reason why boys' service should not be taken against men's service and that he would be looking into it. Although his place in the Ministry

has now been taken by another of my hon. Friends, I hope that this point will be borne in mind when we get the inquiry which we have been promised into the recruitment of young men into the Services.
Referring to answers given to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), my hon. Friend said that he did not consider that an inquiry into the present machinery for discharge was necessary. On the other hand, in reply to another question about young men under 18, he said that the Ministry would be looking at this matter. With great respect, the one cannot be separated from the other. In several of the cases with which we are concerned, the people may be men already past the statutory age of recruitment, but they entered boys' service at 15½, 16 or 17 and it is only because of their difficulties in obtaining release that they are now above the age at which, presumably, an inquiry will be directed.
Therefore, any inquiry must include reference to general discharge from the Services, or it would not be worth while. Since it has been said that this is a matter of minor importance, I looked up the figures, and found that for one year, 1965–66, 4,500 juniors and 481 apprentices entered the Royal Navy and 222 juniors entered the Royal Marines. There are similar figures for both the Army and the R.A.F.
As my right hon. Friend and, no doubt, many other hon. Members know, the National Council for Civil Liberties has, since last August, received details of about 60 cases of young men entering the Forces below the statutory age who encountered great difficulty obtaining their release. Hon. Members also know of cases where this has arisen. We are dealing with quite a problem, numerically.
It was comparatively recently that the Royal Navy introduced the three months' option whereby a young person could obtain release within three months. This brought the Navy into line with the other Services. This means, presumably, that there are young men now in the Navy who would have elected to come out during their first three months had this facility been open to them. I trust, therefore, that any inquiry into this matter will take that into account, because there would appear to have been in the Navy very little, if


any, machinery through which these young men could register their discontent.
I submit that three months as a period in which a young boy aged, perhaps, 15½ can decide whether or not he wishes to dedicate the next 11 or 12 years of his life to serve in the Armed Forces is not nearly long enough. This has been recognised by the Royal Navy, because that Service states in a document:
It is stressed
this is dealing with the discharge of juniors from the Navy
that cases for discharge by purchase are exceptional and most unusual, and discharge will only be granted when it is clear after several months that the boy will never be able to happily settle in the Royal Navy".
It states later:
It is most important for parents or guardians to accept the fact that boys are sometimes homesick and take time to settle down when they first join the Navy. Consequently, any boy who writes home to say that he is not happy, should be allowed at least three months to settle down to the life before his work is upset by the knowledge that an endeavour is being made to secure his discharge".
Other documents applying to discharge for juniors in other sections of the Armed Forces have been issued and one finds similar statements being made to parents when signing their boys on for service. The document from which I was quoting goes on:
When a junior joins the Royal Navy he signs a contract to serve for a set number of years. This contract cannot be broken lightly and only in very exceptional circumstances will the Admiralty Board allow a junior to purchase his discharge".
I could go on to demonstrate that, far from it being easy for a junior or a young person below the statutory age to obtain his release, it is very difficult indeed. This being the position, I ask my hon. Friend to consider making the period at least six months rather than three months and that when a young person reaches the statutory age he should be allowed to. reconsider his decision before he elects to go on for a further nine years of service.
Furthermore, we must review the whole machinery by which young people are encouraged to enter into these long-term agreements. As far as I can discover from other military attachés, we are one of the few countries which per-

mit young people to enter into these commitments at such an early age. It is surely an indictment of our Service life that we do this to boys aged 15½ and that we deny to them the same right to change their minds—to get out of the profession or job they have chosen—as we make available to civilians of the same age.
It is enormously important to bear this factor in mind because we are talking about raising the school leaving age to encourage youngsters to widen their scope and vision and to delay making commitments that will bind them for the rest of their lives. It is wrong that in the Armed Forces we should actually discourage young people from making the very human statement, "I made a mistake. I have changed my mind."
Has the Ministry considered the circumstances in which a young person may join the Armed Forces? Some of them do it for the right reasons and enjoy their Service lives. But that does not apply to all of them. Adolescence is a difficult time, when youngsters look around and make all sorts of decisions which they later regret, perhaps from motives which are not the same two or three years later. We do not consider this factor nearly enough.
The person may be from a broken home. He may be someone—and this, again, gives me great concern—who has been in the care of a local authority, and to whom the continued protection of the sort of life the Service offers is particularly attractive. It may be, too, that parents who have themselves enjoyed Service life feel that it is something their son should also enjoy and put certain pressures and encouragements on him to go in with their consent, but in a few months' or a few years' time the person may realise that it is not his vocation, and that he can make his contribution to society quite differently.
Again, he may have been seduced by the sort of advertisement that appears currently—or did appear—in a children's comic. The advertisement reads:
As this Royal Navy destroyer slips away at dawn Action and Adventure Lie Ahead. Read about life on board—and the great career you'll have. Where is she going? Sorry, that's secret. Perhaps to the Far East, the Mediterranean or the South Atlantic. But one thing is certain. The men on board are in for an adventurous time.


At sea anything can happen. Ships may signal for help. Hostile coastlines have to be patrolled. Smugglers intercepted. Battle exercises carried out.
What's she like? She's a guided missile destroyer. She can explode aircraft out of the sky. Seek out and destroy submarines.
The advertisement goes on:
There are spacious mess decks with bunks and television. Even a T.V. studio that can send its own programme round the ship!
What about your future in the Royal Navy? It's a great time to join—with new ships and new weapons on the way.
You'll also live a varied, active life at sea and ashore; at home and overseas. And you'll enjoy world travel, sport in plenty, fine company and an average of 6 weeks' paid holiday a year.
Post the coupon for full details today. You can join at 15.
To include that sort of advertisement in a child's comic and call it fair recruitment, or presenting a fair picture to an impressionable person of 15, brings discredit to the whole method of recruitment into the Armed Forces.
I am further concerned at the difficulties that I and, I think, several other hon. Members have encountered in regard to young Servicemen who have wished to contact people in authority to try to present their case to get some sort of release. By Order No. 991, Queen's Regulations actively discourage or inhibit anybody in the Armed Forces—but, presumably, particularly young people, since they would find it very difficult to interpret the Regulations—from contacting people in authority. This may not be their object but it certainly has that result, because apprehension has been expressed to more than one of us by young people who have approached us in order to get release.
Surely, we do not want to continue a situation in which a young person is inhibited from contacting Members of Parliament or someone else who could assist him. The National Council for Civil Liberties has gone so far as to suggest that an Ombudsman, or someone particularly responsible for people in this situation, should be appointed. That is, maybe, a far-reaching recommendation, but the whole method of making one's complaints and feelings known should be reviewed by the Department.
I am also interested in the legal position appertaining to young people and to what are called infants generally. The Infants Relief Act, 1874, makes it clear

that people under the statutory age are protected in certain ways in breaking contracts because, according to Halsbury's Laws of England
An infant is of immature intelligence and discretion.
Yet it would appear that these young people who go into the Forces are not protected by this.
These young people are encouraged or allowed to make contracts which may bind them for 12 years while, in our own definition, they are still of immature intelligence and discretion. So much concern has been expressed in relation to the age involved that Mr. Justice Latey's Committee, set up to investigate teen-age contracts generally, has agreed to consider evidence now collated by the N.C.C.L. and to review it when it brings out its report in spring.
When one goes into some of the cases presented—for example, the one I have raised before of a young man who twice has been accepted for university but has twice had to turn his chance down because he could not obtain his release and others who have experienced similar difficulties, although they have shown themselves to be qualified to pursue a different form of endeavour—one can only conclude that the whole machinery needs overhauling.
My hon. Friend, in reply to the hon. Member for Surbiton, recently spoke of the difficulties involved in considering ending long-term contracts, although he said he would look at this again, and of what he called "manning difficulties". This should not be the consideration on which judgment should be made on an issue like this. Manning difficulties should not determine whether or not we make it easier for young people to leave the Forces and perhaps more difficult in the first place to commit themselves for these long periods.
Surely the main consideration should be the fact that young people in the Forces are denied that freedom that is permitted to those outside—to change their minds. We should make it easier for them to say that they have made a mistake and want to embark on another career. It reflects badly on the Forces if they place greater priority on manning than on the rights of a young person of 15, 16 or 17 to say that he wishes to do something else.
I hope that, when this subject is examined by the Ministry, it will take into consideration the points I have made and those which other hon. Members have made from time to time in the last few months and will change its attitude and look upon this matter as much more of a human problem than one of manning the Forces.

10.33 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): This is a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) has spoken before. I remind the House that, in answer to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) a few days ago, I said that I was looking at this problem, which involves difficult and important manning requirements. I shall announce the outcome of my investigations when they are completed; but I cannot now say how long they will take, for they involve long-term considerations.
I must re-emphasise what I said to the hon. Gentleman—although my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough did not seem to like it—that, as far as the Forces are concerned, manning requirements must be one of the major factors to be taken into account.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Why?

Mr. Reynolds: If we did not take them into account, we should find ourselves spending many millions more on defence than we do at the moment; because we should have to have a large number of extra people in order to allow for the possibility of members of the Forces leaving suddenly. We should need many more people to man the ships and the equipment the House has provided if members of the Forces were able to get out much more easily than now. We should need, as it were, a "cushion" against such a situation. If we were to give young people an option to leave at, say, 21, we should have to have many more apprentices in the apprentice schools at any one time. This would mean more schools and more instructors and would cost a great deal of money. We have to bear this in mind. I am as anxious as my hon. Friends are to try to keep expenditure on military matters as low as possible. Having said that, I should like to say at once that I

am well aware of the importance of the other points which my hon. Friend made, and they will be fully considered when I look into this whole matter.
My hon. Friend mentioned the case of leading engineer mechanic Mayhew trying to get into a university for the last two years. I wish that she had referred to the fact that she was informed in a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State yesterday that leading engineer mechanic Mayhew will be released from the Navy in time to take up his university place in October.

Miss Lestor: That letter has not reached me.

Mr. Reynolds: I am sorry. The letter was posted on 10th March telling my hon. Friend that he will be released in time to take up his place at university this year.
I should like to give some details of the number of people involved in this matter. In 1966, the Royal Navy took on 4,925 boys of the age to which we are referring, the Army took on 5,838 and the Royal Air Force 1,244, so that it is about 12,000 boys a year who are going into the Services in this way, about one-quarter of the total intake.
Those who left before completing their training—and these figures will put the matter into perspective—represented 7·7 per cent, of the intake into the Royal Navy, 15·5 per cent, for the Army and about 10 per cent, for the Royal Air Force. About 1 per cent, left the Navy by purchase and 1·05 per cent, for medical reasons; about 7·8 per cent, left the Army by purchase and 2·5 per cent, for medical reasons; about 7 per cent, left the Royal Air Force by purchase and between 1 and 3 per cent, left for medical reasons. Why the figures are different for the three Services is one of the questions which I want to consider in the inquiry which I am now making.
It is also significant that of the cases submitted by the National Council for Civil Liberties, 22 came from the Navy and 6 from the Army, where the numbers taken each year are approximately the same for each Service, whereas there were 10 cases from the Royal Air Force where the numbers of the intakes are considerably smaller. That, too, is a matter which must be seriously considered in my inquiries.
I cannot accept the claim that people are not aware when committing themselves to an apprenticeship that the period of service for which they are signing commences only at the age of 18. Everything is done to make sure that the individual youngster and the parent or guardian concerned are aware of the provisions. They appear on all the various forms which have to be signed; and if people are not aware of the conditions, no blame can be attached to the Army, Air Force or Navy officials for keeping this information from them. The opposite is true. This information is drawn to their attention, they are told that service starts only at the age of 18, and they sign seeing what the conditions are. It may be that 12 months later they have forgotten all about it, but at the time of signing both the young man and the parent or guardian are aware of the conditions, which are clearly stated on the parental consent form which they have to sign, I cannot accept that it is not known at the time, although it may be regretted later.
My hon. Friend also said—I have not been able to check this, but I take her word for it—that few other countries have a system of this nature. It is very difficult to compare our system of running military forces with those of other countries, particularly other European countries, almost all of whom have some form of conscription. With conscription one can pick up apprentices from outside the forces and bring them into the forces and use them for two or three years. We have a voluntary system, and we therefore have to train our own apprentices. It is possible—I am not saying, definitely—that other systems will work as well, but one has to consider the whole system and not just this part of it. I am certain that because other countries can conscript trained people they do not need to train their own, whereas we train our own apprentices in each of the Services.
My hon. Friend made two points which to some extent were contradictory. On the one hand, she drew attention to the fact that in the Navy now, as with the Army and the Air Force, there is provision for the individual to buy himself out in the last fortnight of the first three months of his service. This has just been introduced for the Navy, but it has been

available to the other two Services for some time. My hon. Friend felt that for some reasons it could be argued that the period was too long and for other reasons that it was too short a period in which an individual could be expected to make up his mind about whether the life suited him. I am absolutely certain that for the vast majority of apprentices and young Service men who come into the Forces this period is sufficient, but one must admit that there are a number of people who change their minds for a whole range of reasons after this short period of service. One has also to bear in mind that a number of parents may persuade the boys to change their minds.
While I do not by any means accept all the complaints made about this, I accept that there are genuine cases of hardship; if there are compassionate reasons we can sometimes deal with them. There are genuine cases of people who find they cannot stand the particular way of life. There are also genuine cases of conscientious objection. The difficulty, of course, is how to sort all these out; because we always want to give sympathetic attention to genuine cases and to help sympathetically.
But there are also cases where industrial firms are making deliberate attempts to gain apprentices because they are not training enough themselves, and they try to bribe boys to go out of the Service, and, in certain circumstances, put up the money to enable them to purchase themselves out, in order that they may go to work for them. We must face the fact that there are cases like this as well. I would say also that in allowing these discharges one is often putting a large additional burden on those who remain in the Service. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says they enjoy it. We must make it clear that the vast majority of young soldiers and apprentices do in fact enjoy it. In this debate we are talking about only a minority—

Mr. Driberg: No.

Mr. Reynolds: We do not know exactly, unfortunately, how big or small the minority is, but it is a minority we are talking about, and the young men we are taking in as apprentices and young soldiers are, in most cases, the recruits who do the whole of their service, and provide us with a very large proportion


of our n.c.o.s and warrant officers and skilled tradesmen required by the three Services. It is also the case that it is the recruits who come in at the older ages—17½ and upwards—amongst whom the wastage rate is higher. I know one can argue that young men of 17, 18 or 19 are better able to make a decision, but the fact is that a bigger proportion of them seem to make a mistake, and we find that among the young men of 15 the wastage rate is lower. They also reach higher rank than people who come in at a later age, because of the very intensive and good training they are given, and also a larger proportion of them serve for 22 years, and become entitled to pension.
Another point my hon. Friend raised was about misleading propaganda and publicity, which, she said, was put out by the Services to entice young men into apprentice centres and other training establishments of the three Services. She read a long advertisement which, she said,

was in a recent comic magazine. That advertisement probably did over-glamorise; but that applies to all advertisements, and I do not think it can be alleged that there was any actual misrepresentation of the facts. Indeed, it finished by encouraging people to write and ask for full details, which would then be sent to them. So, while my hon. Friend may think it was misleading, I do not on the whole accept that it was misleading. It was an advertisement to encourage parents and boys to write in for full information, and most of them would then want to ask questions about the Service before coming to a final decision—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.